Jump to content
Nextel49

Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

Recommended Posts

Marcelo’s Submitted Statement painted a really bleak picture for Sprint as a stand-alone company: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/06-27-18 Claure Testimony.pdf
Legere’s Submitted Statement: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/06-27-18 Legere Testimony.pdf
Page 7:
But even before 5G is deployed, the combination will bring benefits for users of the companies’ existing LTE networks. Because the merger will almost immediately add approximately 11,000 Sprint cell sites to T‐Mobile’s network, and deploy all of Sprint’s spectrum on our T‐Mobile towers, New T‐ Mobile’s network capacity will get a massive boost compared to either company standing alone, practically from day one. That means an improved LTE network during the transition to 5G, because New T‐Mobile will be able to more effectively and efficiently allocate spectrum between its LTE and 5G networks. In addition, approximately 20 million Sprint customers will have near immediate access to the T‐Mobile network because their existing phones can be used on either network. Further, New T‐ Mobile will embrace a policy of “same or better” as part of migrating customers onto the combined network, enabling Sprint customers to keep the same or better plans as they join New T‐Mobile.
 


Nice! But for how long though? Through the 2-3 year of combining the network?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Marcelo laid it on pretty thick as to what Sprint’s troubles are... Wow....

I haven't ready his testimony and probably won't have a chance to until late tonight or tomorrow, but much like the FCC document, why is this a surprise? Part of the sell job to the regulators and anyone like congress that could potentially step in the way of this is that Sprint (and T-Mobile makes the same argument themselves in their portion of the FCC filing as well) are in precarious position going forward with significant competitive disadvantages to AT&T and Verizon.

 

Selling this, and specifically selling this angle is why Claure is no longer the CEO and why Combes and the rest of the executive team is on a cross country roadshow telling employees the exact opposite of what Claure is telling the regulators. It is all part of the dance.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also we really need to stop acting like what is being said is new information. Marcelo says Sprint is going to need to spend $20-25 Billion over the next 4 years to build out 5G coverage to urban and suburban areas. Sprint already said they plan on spending $5-6Billion in capex per year going forward. Marcelo said Sprint doesn't have the spectrum to deploy 5G across its entire footprint and will be forced to stay within urban centers and their suburbs. We already knew that given how 2.5GHz propagates and that 5G deployment at least initially would focus on areas that would provide the largest return on investment. The only thing new is the that Marcelo is saying that he thinks this increased investment won't be enough to take on Verizon and AT&T.

The information hasn't changed, only the tone. The change in tone is simply to sell the merger as a necessity.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr.Nuke said:

I haven't ready his testimony and probably won't have a chance to until late tonight or tomorrow, but much like the FCC document, why is this a surprise? Part of the sell job to the regulators and anyone like congress that could potentially step in the way of this is that Sprint (and T-Mobile makes the same argument themselves in their portion of the FCC filing as well) are in precarious position going forward with significant competitive disadvantages to AT&T and Verizon.

 

Selling this, and specifically selling this angle is why Claure is no longer the CEO and why Combes and the rest of the executive team is on a cross country roadshow telling employees the exact opposite of what Claure is telling the regulators. It is all part of the dance.

They are not saying two different things. They are saying two different parts of the same story. Combs: we are investing 5-7 billion in out network for the next two years. Marcelo: we are but it will not likily change the overall market and we wont gain significant scale out of the investment. Combs: we are building a a 5g network with deep spectrum assets. Marcelo: yes we are, but it will be limited geographically to major metros and it wont penetrate buildings for crap. 

 

See? Same story, just different parts. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr.Nuke said:

I haven't ready his testimony and probably won't have a chance to until late tonight or tomorrow, but much like the FCC document, why is this a surprise? Part of the sell job to the regulators and anyone like congress that could potentially step in the way of this is that Sprint (and T-Mobile makes the same argument themselves in their portion of the FCC filing as well) are in precarious position going forward with significant competitive disadvantages to AT&T and Verizon.

 

Selling this, and specifically selling this angle is why Claure is no longer the CEO and why Combes and the rest of the executive team is on a cross country roadshow telling employees the exact opposite of what Claure is telling the regulators. It is all part of the dance.

Is Sprint selling the advantages of the merger in the roadshow or its ability to be a competitive stand-alone company with its turnaround progress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know when the FCC & DOJ will review the merger? Someone online said the merger can be approved as early as October this year 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Paynefanbro said:

Also we really need to stop acting like what is being said is new information. Marcelo says Sprint is going to need to spend $20-25 Billion over the next 4 years to build out 5G coverage to urban and suburban areas. Sprint already said they plan on spending $5-6Billion in capex per year going forward. Marcelo said Sprint doesn't have the spectrum to deploy 5G across its entire footprint and will be forced to stay within urban centers and their suburbs. We already knew that given how 2.5GHz propagates and that 5G deployment at least initially would focus on areas that would provide the largest return on investment. The only thing new is the that Marcelo is saying that he thinks this increased investment won't be enough to take on Verizon and AT&T.

The information hasn't changed, only the tone. The change in tone is simply to sell the merger as a necessity.

I just find it ironic how Dr. Saw used to say how 5G over Millimeter Wave wasn’t economically feasible (https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/sprint-says-no-to-mmwave-yes-to-mobile-5g/d/d-id/739592)

Sprint's CTO said Wednesday that he is not sure that using millimeter waves to deliver 5G services is a practical economic use of the high-band spectrum and that Sprint will be focusing on using its existing bandwidth to deploy 5G, at least initially.

"What is the cost to deliver a bit over millimeter waves? Where is the business case on that?" John Saw asked at the Citi conference in Las Vegas.

Instead, we heard that 2.5 GHz was the lowband of 5G:(http://investors.sprint.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2016/Sprint-Kicks-Off-5G-Demonstration-at-Copa-Amrica-Centenario-in-Philadelphia-with-Speeds-Up-to-4-Gbps/default.aspx)

“The cornerstone of 5G will be massively dense networks that use high-bandwidth spectrum to deliver vast amounts of data at tremendously high speeds,” said Dr. John Saw, Sprint CTO. “Our 2.5 GHz spectrum is the low-band spectrum of 5G. And with holdings of more than 160 MHz of 2.5 GHz spectrum in the top 100 U.S. markets, we hold more 5G-capable spectrum than any other carrier. This gives us great confidence in our position for 5G.”

And now we hear from Marcelo’s statements to congress that deploying 2.5 GHz nationwide isn’t economically feasible.

We also heard that Sprint lacks the low band spectrum (read 600 MHz) to deploy 5G nationwide... which is what T-Mobile got in the 600 MHz auction, which Sprint didn’t participate in because it was called “spectrum of the past”, derided for taking years to deploy, etc.... we were assured it wasn’t about the money by the then CFO...

Meanwhile, T-Mobile wound up with a boatload of it and Sprint also helped ensure this would happen because it advocated along with Dish for a 40 MHz reserve, which actually wound up being 30 MHz but no matter... so here we are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the merger affect this bet?

Based on what we heard from Marcelo’s statements to Congress about the economics involved for deploying 5G on 2.5 GHz nationwide, sounds like Neville was on to something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IamMrFamous07 said:

Do we know when the FCC & DOJ will review the merger? Someone online said the merger can be approved as early as October this year 

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/.amp/news/fcc-preps-for-sprint-t-mobile-merger-review

180 Day “Shot Clock” for the FCC:

https://www.fcc.gov/transaction/t-mobile-sprint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

I just find it ironic how Dr. Saw used to say how 5G over Millimeter Wave wasn’t economically feasible (https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/sprint-says-no-to-mmwave-yes-to-mobile-5g/d/d-id/739592)

Sprint's CTO said Wednesday that he is not sure that using millimeter waves to deliver 5G services is a practical economic use of the high-band spectrum and that Sprint will be focusing on using its existing bandwidth to deploy 5G, at least initially.

"What is the cost to deliver a bit over millimeter waves? Where is the business case on that?" John Saw asked at the Citi conference in Las Vegas.

Instead, we heard that 2.5 GHz was the lowband of 5G:(http://investors.sprint.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2016/Sprint-Kicks-Off-5G-Demonstration-at-Copa-Amrica-Centenario-in-Philadelphia-with-Speeds-Up-to-4-Gbps/default.aspx)

“The cornerstone of 5G will be massively dense networks that use high-bandwidth spectrum to deliver vast amounts of data at tremendously high speeds,” said Dr. John Saw, Sprint CTO. “Our 2.5 GHz spectrum is the low-band spectrum of 5G. And with holdings of more than 160 MHz of 2.5 GHz spectrum in the top 100 U.S. markets, we hold more 5G-capable spectrum than any other carrier. This gives us great confidence in our position for 5G.”

And now we hear from Marcelo’s statements to congress that deploying 2.5 GHz nationwide isn’t economically feasible.

Once again, it's the same information with a different tone. In the context of mmWave being the standard spectrum for deployment of high speed 5G services, yes Sprint's 2.5GHz is lowband. 2.5GHz can be deployed throughout urban and suburban areas in a cost effective manner while still providing the gigabit speeds you see from mmWave. mmWave in itself is not a practical way to deliver 5G services to anywhere outside of dense urban areas and even T-Mobile acknowledges that. You can see in the filing that the areas where they expect to match Sprint in high speed 5G are pathetically small compared to Sprint.

Quote

We also heard that Sprint lacks the low band spectrum (read 600 MHz) to deploy 5G nationwide... which is what T-Mobile got in the 600 MHz auction, which Sprint didn’t participate in because it was called “spectrum of the past”, derided for taking years to deploy, etc.... we were assured it wasn’t about the money by the then CFO...

Meanwhile, T-Mobile wound up with a boatload of it and Sprint also helped ensure this would happen because it advocated along with Dish for a 40 MHz reserve, which actually wound up being 30 MHz but no matter... so here we are.

To these points, the term nationwide in used in two contexts, blanket coverage and covering cities across the country. If you expected Sprint to offer blanket coverage over 2.5GHz, I don't know where you got that idea. Neither T-Mobile, nor Verizon, nor AT&T offer blanket LTE coverage over their midband holdings. Sure they cover a lot of the country but it's mostly due to their 700MHz and 850MHz holdings. And while 600MHz offers great coverage, the speed it produces will be similar to LTE. Because of this, I'd say it isn't unfair to call 600MHz the spectrum of the past. In use it resembles LTE more than it embodies the high speeds that we expect from 5G. I really don't understand why you're railing hard against Sprint and 2.5GHz when T-Mobile has expressed even more doubts about how well its 600MHz will be for 5G. They spent billions on what's only barely faster LTE.

TL;DR

Sprint alone will have great speeds but not great coverage. T-Mobile alone will have great coverage but not great speeds. Neither of these is new information and isn't a change in tune from what we heard previously.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

It would be nice if it gets approved by end of the year. Idk if my T-Mobile iPhone X is compatible with band 41 though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IamMrFamous07 said:

It would be nice if it gets approved by end of the year. Idk if my T-Mobile iPhone X is compatible with band 41 though

T-Mobile Model shows support for Band 41 in the Specs: https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/specs/

I guess we’ll see?

The new iPhones coming this fall will likely have support for 600 MHz and also support HPUE.

Hopefully the Sprint version gets 600 MHz support. Leaving that off would be typical Apple though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RedSpark said:

T-Mobile Model shows support for Band 41 in the Specs: https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/specs/

I guess we’ll see?

The new iPhones coming this fall will likely have support for 600 MHz and also support HPUE.

Hopefully the Sprint version gets 600 MHz support. Leaving that off would be typical Apple though...

The iPhone X only has one model. With sim, different features and turned on and off. Therefore I think this next gen will be just fine as I assume Tmo will provide updated sims or firmware will be pushed to Sprint people for VoLTE and vice versa to Tmo people to acces B41. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jroepcke51 said:

The iPhone X only has one model. With sim, different features and turned on and off. Therefore I think this next gen will be just fine as I assume Tmo will provide updated sims or firmware will be pushed to Sprint people for VoLTE and vice versa to Tmo people to acces B41. 

There’s two Model Numbers: https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/specs/

Cellular and Wireless
  • Model A1865*
  • FDD-LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 66)
  • TD-LTE (Bands 34, 38, 39, 40, 41)
  • TD-SCDMA 1900 (F), 2000 (A)
  • CDMA EV-DO Rev. A (800, 1900, 2100 MHz)
  • UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz)
  • GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
  • Model A1901*

Model A1901 does not support CDMA networks, such as those used by Verizon and Sprint.

  • FDD-LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 66)
  • TD-LTE (Bands 34, 38, 39, 40, 41)
  • UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz)
  • GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
  • All models
  • 802.11ac Wi‑Fi with MIMO
  • Bluetooth 5.0 wireless technology
  • NFC with reader mode
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

There’s two Model Numbers: https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/specs/

Cellular and Wireless
  • Model A1865*
  • FDD-LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 66)
  • TD-LTE (Bands 34, 38, 39, 40, 41)
  • TD-SCDMA 1900 (F), 2000 (A)
  • CDMA EV-DO Rev. A (800, 1900, 2100 MHz)
  • UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz)
  • GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
  • Model A1901*

Model A1901 does not support CDMA networks, such as those used by Verizon and Sprint.

  • FDD-LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 66)
  • TD-LTE (Bands 34, 38, 39, 40, 41)
  • UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz)
  • GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
  • All models
  • 802.11ac Wi‑Fi with MIMO
  • Bluetooth 5.0 wireless technology
  • NFC with reader mode

The only difference being, CDMA?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IamMrFamous07 said:

Do we know when the FCC & DOJ will review the merger? Someone online said the merger can be approved as early as October this year 

They can get the FCC decision in 180 days. I am pretty sure that the DOJ also has 180 days for its review. The only question is do the two agencies do their review sequentially or in parallel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Paynefanbro said:

Also we really need to stop acting like what is being said is new information. Marcelo says Sprint is going to need to spend $20-25 Billion over the next 4 years to build out 5G coverage to urban and suburban areas. Sprint already said they plan on spending $5-6Billion in capex per year going forward. Marcelo said Sprint doesn't have the spectrum to deploy 5G across its entire footprint and will be forced to stay within urban centers and their suburbs. We already knew that given how 2.5GHz propagates and that 5G deployment at least initially would focus on areas that would provide the largest return on investment. The only thing new is the that Marcelo is saying that he thinks this increased investment won't be enough to take on Verizon and AT&T.

The information hasn't changed, only the tone. The change in tone is simply to sell the merger as a necessity.

Here’s a good article about the Hearing: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/editor-s-corner-4-takeaways-from-sprint-t-mobile-senate-merger-hearing

I found these parts interesting:

Both Legere and Claure have made 5G a key element in their merger proposal. Sprint and T-Mobile will build a massive 5G network if they are allowed to merge, and that action, according to Legere, could push AT&T and Verizon to invest an additional $20 billion of combined spending into their own 5G buildouts in response.

However, Sen. Klobuchar pointed out that both Sprint and T-Mobile already announced fairly aggressive 5G buildout plans prior to their April merger announcement. So why do they need to merge?

Claure countered that Sprint will need to spend up to $25 billion to build out a standalone 5G network, and even then, the network won’t cover large geographic areas of the United States.

“At most this merger is a shortcut,” argued Consumers Union’s Slover, explaining that a Sprint/T-Mobile merger would simply allow the companies to build out a 5G network faster than they could on their own.

Good points! This does seem like a shortcut, much like what came out in the filing that undermined the AT&T/T-Mobile merger: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Leaked-ATT-Letter-Demolishes-Case-For-TMobile-Merger-115652

For the first time the letter pegs the cost of bringing AT&T's LTE coverage from 80% to 97% at $3.8 billion -- quite a cost difference from the $39 billion price tag on the T-Mobile deal.

Sprint wouldn’t need T-Mobile’s 600 MHz Spectrum for nationwide 5G if it had bid and gotten some in the auction... but we were told by the former CFO that it wasn’t for lack of money, but because it was the spectrum of the past while 2.5 GHz was where things were headed.

So, it’s either true that Sprint not bidding on 600 MHz was due to the lack of money... in which case this assertion by the CFO was a complete lie.

Or, it wasn’t due to a lack of money and Sprint really believed that it didn’t need 600 MHz for a truly nationwide 5G network as it was “spectrum of the past”... only to have that blow up in its face down the road.

Has to be one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Here’s a good article about the Hearing: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/editor-s-corner-4-takeaways-from-sprint-t-mobile-senate-merger-hearing

I found these parts interesting:

Both Legere and Claure have made 5G a key element in their merger proposal. Sprint and T-Mobile will build a massive 5G network if they are allowed to merge, and that action, according to Legere, could push AT&T and Verizon to invest an additional $20 billion of combined spending into their own 5G buildouts in response.

However, Sen. Klobuchar pointed out that both Sprint and T-Mobile already announced fairly aggressive 5G buildout plans prior to their April merger announcement. So why do they need to merge?

Claure countered that Sprint will need to spend up to $25 billion to build out a standalone 5G network, and even then, the network won’t cover large geographic areas of the United States.

“At most this merger is a shortcut,” argued Consumers Union’s Slover, explaining that a Sprint/T-Mobile merger would simply allow the companies to build out a 5G network faster than they could on their own.

Good points! This does seem like a shortcut, much like what came out in the filing that undermined the AT&T/T-Mobile merger: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Leaked-ATT-Letter-Demolishes-Case-For-TMobile-Merger-115652

For the first time the letter pegs the cost of bringing AT&T's LTE coverage from 80% to 97% at $3.8 billion -- quite a cost difference from the $39 billion price tag on the T-Mobile deal.

Sprint wouldn’t need T-Mobile’s 600 MHz Spectrum for nationwide 5G if it had bid and gotten some in the auction... but we were told by the former CFO that it wasn’t for lack of money, but because it was the spectrum of the past while 2.5 GHz was where things were headed.

So, it’s either true that Sprint not bidding on 600 MHz was due to the lack of money... in which case this assertion by the CFO was a complete lie.

Or, it wasn’t due to a lack of money and Sprint really believed that it didn’t need 600 MHz for a truly nationwide 5G network as it was “spectrum of the past”... only to have that blow up in its face down the road.

Has to be one of those.

It was for lack of money. Sprint has not had money for 13 years now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Paynefanbro said:

Once again, it's the same information with a different tone. In the context of mmWave being the standard spectrum for deployment of high speed 5G services, yes Sprint's 2.5GHz is lowband. 2.5GHz can be deployed throughout urban and suburban areas in a cost effective manner while still providing the gigabit speeds you see from mmWave. mmWave in itself is not a practical way to deliver 5G services to anywhere outside of dense urban areas and even T-Mobile acknowledges that. You can see in the filing that the areas where they expect to match Sprint in high speed 5G are pathetically small compared to Sprint.

To these points, the term nationwide in used in two contexts, blanket coverage and covering cities across the country. If you expected Sprint to offer blanket coverage over 2.5GHz, I don't know where you got that idea. Neither T-Mobile, nor Verizon, nor AT&T offer blanket LTE coverage over their midband holdings. Sure they cover a lot of the country but it's mostly due to their 700MHz and 850MHz holdings. And while 600MHz offers great coverage, the speed it produces will be similar to LTE. Because of this, I'd say it isn't unfair to call 600MHz the spectrum of the past. In use it resembles LTE more than it embodies the high speeds that we expect from 5G. I really don't understand why you're railing hard against Sprint and 2.5GHz when T-Mobile has expressed even more doubts about how well its 600MHz will be for 5G. They spent billions on what's only barely faster LTE.

TL;DR

Sprint alone will have great speeds but not great coverage. T-Mobile alone will have great coverage but not great speeds. Neither of these is new information and isn't a change in tune from what we heard previously.

My point is that once Sprint didn’t bid in the 600 MHz auction, it was actually an abdication that it wouldn’t compete for true nationwide coverage of LTE/5G. Sprint’s 800MHz holdings are actually quite limited, and not even fully deployed due to rebanding issues/delays. In fact, T-Mobile has been able to deploy their 600 MHz Spectrum pretty quickly, and there’s even a chance that it could finish before Sprint completes its 800 MHz rebanding. Remember, we were told by the former Sprint CFO that “600 MHz would take years to deploy.... so why should we bid on any?”

This merger wouldn’t be necessary for “low band” for nationwide 5G reasons if Sprint had acquired some 600 MHz in the auction... but Sprint didn’t participate.

When you say that no other carrier offers blanket LTE coverage over midband, you’re right. Sprint expected us to believe otherwise when it said that it didn’t need 600 MHz.... and now we are where we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

It was for lack of money. Sprint has not had money for 13 years now.

So the CFO lied?: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-cfo-robbiati-600-mhz-spectrum-past

“We did not participate in the 600 MHz (auction) not because we didn’t have money at the time, or we were under-resourced for it,” he said. “It is simply spectrum that is spectrum of the past. The world is moving toward high-capacity wireless data networks, and in that world the best and most efficient spectrum that is needed for that… is mid-band spectrum, the spectrum that we have, the 2.5 GHz spectrum.”

Robbiati also noted that the TV broadcasters’ airwaves currently up for grabs may not be available for several years. The FCC has issued a 39-month repacking plan for that spectrum, enabling the broadcasters to move to other airwaves while their former spectrum is reshuffled for wireless use.

“Why invest in 600 MHz spectrum if that spectrum doesn’t really cater for the future, and also it’s spectrum you cannot deploy for four years?” Robbiati asked rhetorically. “And it doesn’t have an ecosystem in support as widespread as 2.5 spectrum, which is the largest ecosystem in the world.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RedSpark said:

My point is that once Sprint didn’t bid in the 600 MHz auction, it was actually an abdication that it wouldn’t compete for true nationwide coverage of LTE/5G. Sprint’s 800MHz holdings are actually quite limited, and not even fully deployed due to rebanding issues/delays. In fact, T-Mobile has been able to deploy their 600 MHz Spectrum pretty quickly, and there’s even a chance that it could finish before Sprint completes its 800 MHz rebanding. Remember, we were told by the former Sprint CFO that “600 MHz would take years to deploy.... so why should we bid on any?”

This merger wouldn’t be necessary for “low band” for nationwide 5G reasons if Sprint had acquired some 600 MHz in the auction... but Sprint didn’t participate.

When you say that no other carrier offers blanket LTE coverage over midband, you’re right. Sprint expected us to believe otherwise when it said that it didn’t need 600 MHz.... and now we are where we are.

600Mhz has not being cleared for the major metro areas and won't for a little while. T-Mobile has done a remarkable job deploying 600Mhz where it has been cleared.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

600Mhz has not being cleared for the major metro areas and won't for a little while. T-Mobile has done a remarkable job deploying 600Mhz where it has been cleared.

That’s fine. Sprint has 2.5 GHz for those major metro areas until that happens. Sprint can’t even deploy 800 MHz everywhere yet, and given T-Mobile’s Speed, this could have been done by Sprint.

A 10-20 MHz Channel would have made all the difference, but oh well. They let T-Mobile get it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

My point is that once Sprint didn’t bid in the 600 MHz auction, it was actually an abdication that it wouldn’t compete for true nationwide coverage of LTE/5G. Sprint’s 800MHz holdings are actually quite limited, and not even fully deployed due to rebanding issues/delays. In fact, T-Mobile has been able to deploy their 600 MHz Spectrum pretty quickly, and there’s even a chance that it could finish before Sprint completes its 800 MHz rebanding. Remember, we were told by the former Sprint CFO that “600 MHz would take years to deploy.... so why should we bid on any?”

This merger wouldn’t be necessary for “low band” for nationwide 5G reasons if Sprint had acquired some 600 MHz in the auction... but Sprint didn’t participate.

When you say that no other carrier offers blanket LTE coverage over midband, you’re right. Sprint expected us to believe otherwise when it said that it didn’t need 600 MHz.... and now we are where we are.

What does nationwide mean to you? I said in my previous comment that nationwide is used in two contexts, in terms of covering most cities and suburbs and also referring to blanket coverage. If Sprint covers most cities and suburbs, effectively covering most of the population, by all accounts of how the word "nationwide" has been used in the past, Sprint would have a nationwide 5G network. Sprint never claimed they'd offer any amount of blanket 5G coverage over 2.5GHz, so where are you getting this expectation from? T-Mobile's 600MHz deployment has happened in rural areas mostly and is still waiting in urban areas across the country. That map that they are showing for 5G coverage in their FCC filing is in 2024, not 2019. So while they are deploying quickly in areas that they can, they are still playing the waiting game like Sprint is in other areas.

Verizon didn't participate and AT&T barely participated in the 600MHz auction. Why? Because it's not worth it to spend billions on a spectrum that has very little net benefit to consumers. That's why they keep calling it spectrum of the past. If Sprint had bid against T-Mobile they'd likely end up with even smaller broken up chunks of 600MHz in fewer places which would have made it even less practical to own any.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

The only difference being, CDMA?

 

Basically. The CDMA model uses a Qualcomm modem whereas the GSM model uses an Intel modem, therefore no CDMA support.

 

-Anthony

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paynefanbro said:

What does nationwide mean to you? I said in my previous comment that nationwide is used in two contexts, in terms of covering most cities and suburbs and also referring to blanket coverage. If Sprint covers most cities and suburbs, effectively covering most of the population, by all accounts of how the word "nationwide" has been used in the past, Sprint would have a nationwide 5G network. Sprint never claimed they'd offer any amount of blanket 5G coverage over 2.5GHz, so where are you getting this expectation from? T-Mobile's 600MHz deployment has happened in rural areas mostly and is still waiting in urban areas across the country. That map that they are showing for 5G coverage in their FCC filing is in 2024, not 2019. So while they are deploying quickly in areas that they can, they are still playing the waiting game like Sprint is in other areas.

Verizon didn't participate and AT&T barely participated in the 600MHz auction. Why? Because it's not worth it to spend billions on a spectrum that has very little net benefit to consumers. That's why they keep calling it spectrum of the past. If Sprint had bid against T-Mobile they'd likely end up with even smaller broken up chunks of 600MHz in fewer places which would have made it even less practical to own any.

“Nationwide” has been used as an amorphous term by Sprint.

Sprint says it has a nationwide network, but that it needs to merge with T-Mobile to have a nationwide network and be a viable competitor to Verizon/AT&T which have nationwide networks... and that its future as a nationwide competitor isn’t viable, leaving it relegated to being a market-trailing 4th Place player.

Sprint told us it didn’t need 600 MHz to be “nationwide”... and now it’s telling us it needs it to be “nationwide”. What a shift, but I’m not the one who moved the goalposts. Sprint did.

Not sure why you say 600 MHz has little net benefit for consumers. If Sprint had gotten some, it wouldn’t need to merge with T-Mobile.

Finally, Sprint needs Coverage in rural areas. It would have been better off acquiring 600 MHz than continuing CCA Roaming Agreements in my opinion.

Just my take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • I assume the FCC and DOJ were waiting on this security sign off. DOJ will follow and then the FCC ...


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Since people often don't like change, I could see a mad rush once the merger is approved but before it takes effect.  The first of three hurdles has been jumped (national security demand that parent firms get rid of Huawei has been accepted).  DOJ and FCC remain.
    • At least in Samsung markets with AirHarmony small cells, the PCI of small cells is 450 or greater.  EARFCN would be another way, but that sometimes gets location specific. GCI  would be another way, but then you would need to know the MM cutoff point for each market (we have those for Ohio)
    • Thank you Mike one of the guys clarified it. Good to know I wasn’t seeing things lol


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • The app already uses EARFCN as the primary means to identify the LTE band.. it will try to match a GCI pattern first, but if there are no matches or the "guessed" band does not match EARFCN data that appears to be valid, it uses the EARFCN instead. Since there are so many B14 sector possibilities right now, I don't think I will continue adding them beyond what is programmed now. Most newer devices on newer Android builds are properly reporting EARFCN, with some exceptions (issues with B66/B71 most notably). GCI pattern matching has become most useful to identify "special" cells (MM/SC/MB/Airave/etc) as well as multiple carriers.   I know this was answered elsewhere, but for the benefit of anyone who comes along later -- a small cell second carrier has been identified that follows the same GCI pattern as one sector of a Mini-Macro second carrier. Since the app has no way to know which one it is, it displays both indicators when this occurs. -Mike
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×