Jump to content
Nextel49

Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, RedSpark said:

The newest Samsung and LG Phones support it. Assuming the next iPhone coming later this year supports it, that’s substantial as well.

As for walking and chewing gum at the same time, that’s a management issue. I don’t know what to say, but T-Mobile made this deployment happen in about 1-1.5 years.

Sprint disclosed to the FCC the truth which I feared in the back of my mind as a worst case scenario despite Sprint’s assurances to the contrary: Even a complete Band 41 deployment isn’t enough for it to have a truly competitive national network footprint. The economics don’t come out favorably from what we’ve been told.

The time to talk about Sprint's past was back then.  This constant supposing/revisionist history just is not relevant in the discussion of the merger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2018 at 12:10 PM, Johnner1999 said:

Correct -- but thats Sprint... I believe TMO was planning on Nokia for 5G 

Well let's see what happens with this. As article States it could definitely complicate the merger. I don't know what's going to happen so I'm just sitting back and watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, S4GRU said:

Your memory conveniently rewrites history.  Sprint did not have the resources of T-Mobile to do that.  All your supposing is if Sprint and T-Mobile had exactly the same financial footing the day of the 600MHz auction.  Far from it.  And not only that, if Sprint had participated, everyone would have paid more for 600MHz too, and smaller blocks for everyone.  Sprint wouldn't have purchased for the same amount T-mo just did, they would have paid more.  And there is no way Sprint would have walked out of the auctions with as much spectrum as T-Mobile did.  Sprint could not afford to pay for 600MHz, let alone pay more for it by driving up the prices.  And then pay for the deployment of it.  You already complain about Sprint CapEx, but you would have required them to spend even more. 

You act like Sprint had unlimited resources.  That really has always been the issue all along.  They have had to focus on getting the best bang for the limited resources they have.  And the network is getting better and better.  It's been a fine line all along.  The big disappointment in the past 5 years in my mind is that Masayoshi Son never swept in with more capital.  That was the expectation all along.  A couple of extra cash infusions at the right times the past 5 years could have catapulted Sprint far forward in the race.  Maybe even prevented T-Mobile from taking 3rd Place.

Sprint never really received an outside infusion but was forced to reorganize and fund internally with the resources they had or could muster on their own.  Which were good moves for financially security.  However, additional capital on top of that really would have gone a long way.  But it is still quite amazing what Sprint did pull off without the additional capital infusions.

But your would haves, should haves, could haves of Sprint are not founded in financial reality and not reflective of the history as I recall it.  And they are not useful now for what is going on, not constructive to help Sprint in the future or a combined company in the future.  It's just meant to make you look superior in the eyes of a couple of Sprint naysayers now, after the fact.  And I won't let you get away with that here.

Robert

I agree with many of your points. It’s not my intent to stir the pot or engage in revisionist history. It’s also not my intent to come across as superior in any way. I apologize for any of this coming across to anyone here.

I see two problems with this merger. One is that it reduces the number of carriers from 4 to 3. I think there will be a net loss of competition as a result, even if Sprint/T-Mobile claim they’ll be more competitive as result. The second is that the merger may not actually happen, and if it doesn’t, Sprint has a problem on its hands going forward that SoftBank didn’t effectively plan for.

The FCC Filing and Marcelo’s congressional testimony each provided unambiguous (and truthful) declarations by Sprint of the current position it was in. Perhaps they exaggerate the negative to support the merger just like Sprint’s news releases exaggerate the positive on network news.

As you said, Sprint was in a position of having to do this on its own. Some of the decisions Marcelo made confounded me, but as you said, he was put in a terrible position by SoftBank. We were all hoping for capital infusions from Masa, but they never came. The money went to ARM, Boston Robotics, Uber, etc. Marcelo told us that there was a turnaround plan in the works, but the capital to put Sprint ahead never came.

By withholding the necessary capital, Masa essentially crippled and devalued his own investment (Sprint) in the process of pursuing the T-Mobile merger. This is inexplicable to me because it gave Sprint even less leverage in a merger deal, and in the event that the merger doesn’t go through, Sprint is left in a worse competitive position. Sitting out the 600 MHz auction was SoftBank’s decision ultimately, and it was a bet on the fact that they’d get the spectrum back with a T-Mobile merger. However, Masa was probably operating under the assumption at the time that he’d be running the combined company. That didn’t pan out, and so now if the merger doesn’t happen, SoftBank left Sprint without 600 MHz Spectrum and an insufficiently Capex’ed network which significantly limits its competitive strength going forward, which affects customer/investor sentiment, which affects everything else in a feedback loop.

Share this post


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

I agree with many of your points. It’s not my intent to stir the pot or engage in revisionist history. It’s also not my intent to come across as superior in any way. I apologize for any of this coming across to anyone here.

I see two problems with this merger. One is that it reduces the number of carriers from 4 to 3. I think there will be a net loss of competition as a result, even if Sprint/T-Mobile claim they’ll be more competitive as result. The second is that the merger may not actually happen, and if it doesn’t, Sprint has a problem on its hands going forward that SoftBank didn’t effectively plan for.

The FCC Filing and Marcelo’s congressional testimony each provided unambiguous (and truthful) declarations by Sprint of the current position it was in. Perhaps they exaggerate the negative to support the merger just like Sprint’s news releases exaggerate the positive on network news.

As you said, Sprint was in a position of having to do this on its own. Some of the decisions Marcelo made confounded me, but as you said, he was put in a terrible position by SoftBank. We were all hoping for capital infusions from Masa, but they never came. The money went to ARM, Boston Robotics, Uber, etc. Marcelo told us that there was a turnaround plan in the works, but the capital to put Sprint ahead never came.

By withholding the necessary capital, Masa essentially crippled and devalued his own investment (Sprint) in the process of pursuing the T-Mobile merger. This is inexplicable to me because it gave Sprint even less leverage in a merger deal, and in the event that the merger doesn’t go through, Sprint is left in a worse competitive position. Sitting out the 600 MHz auction was SoftBank’s decision ultimately, and it was a bet on the fact that they’d get the spectrum back with a T-Mobile merger. However, Masa was probably operating under the assumption at the time that he’d be running the combined company. That didn’t pan out, and so now if the merger doesn’t happen, SoftBank left Sprint without 600 MHz Spectrum and an insufficiently Capex’ed network which significantly limits its competitive strength going forward, which affects customer/investor sentiment, which affects everything else in a feedback loop.

I think your way too hung up on the whole 600mhz thing. Just ask any Tmobile or Sprint user how "amazing" band 12 or 26 was after being deployed. In most applications its more of a "Hey we can finally hang onto LTE so your VoLTE can work and see less 3G" and while I do believe having that low band spectrum has its place (especially in more rural situations) Its cost does not outway its benefits unfortunately especially coming from Sprint.

For Tmobile, it was a no brainier, simply  because they truly lacked spectrum, not because they saw it as this huge technical advancement over their other holdings.

Now if somehow they could have secured 60Mhz+ of 600mhz, I would have been singing a different tune.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think your way too hung up on the whole 600mhz thing. Just ask any Tmobile or Sprint user how "amazing" band 12 or 26 was after being deployed. In most applications its more of a "Hey we can finally hang onto LTE so your VoLTE can work and see less 3G" and while I do believe having that low band spectrum has its place (especially in more rural situations) Its cost does not outway its benefits unfortunately especially coming from Sprint.

For Tmobile, it was a no brainier, simply  because they truly lacked spectrum, not because they saw it as this huge technical advancement over their other holdings.

Now if somehow they could have secured 60Mhz+ of 600mhz, I would have been singing a different tune.

Sprint has been Capex limited ever since they acquired Nextel, a merger I have opposed from the beginning. Softbank acquired Sprint with the express purpose f merging them with T-Mobile. Why else they would not invest in Sprint?

Now if the merger does not go through, Sprint would be rowing upstream without a paddle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sprint has been Capex limited ever since they acquired Nextel, a merger I have opposed from the beginning. Softbank acquired Sprint with the express purpose f merging them with T-Mobile. Why else they would not invest in Sprint?

Now if the merger does not go through, Sprint would be rowing upstream without a paddle.

If Sprint kept its capex at its current level for the next two or three quarters (highly unlikely at this point) they would be perfectly fine and in a good position to launch 5G in a big way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

If Sprint kept its capex at its current level for the next two or three quarters (highly unlikely at this point) they would be perfectly fine and in a good position to launch 5G in a big way.

Where will they find the money to continue spending $6B/year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

If Sprint kept its capex at its current level for the next two or three quarters (highly unlikely at this point) they would be perfectly fine and in a good position to launch 5G in a big way.

I'm just wanting to see overall coverage expansion..  I don't care about this generation coverage or even speed at this point. My town the coverage is amazing along the highway especially with band 41... But once you get off the main Highway and go down one of the roads it's about a mile the coverage is Swiss cheese. I know T-Mobile installed tri-band LTE on a flagpole site near my parents house. Even with a negative 115 to 120 decibel signal and get 20 to 30 m down and 10 for an upload. Sprint is a major Roaming hole over there. Sprint has a perfect opportunity on top of a water tower that still has some vacant slots available. That would give them a more dense grid where my parents live..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

I think your way too hung up on the whole 600mhz thing. Just ask any Tmobile or Sprint user how "amazing" band 12 or 26 was after being deployed. In most applications its more of a "Hey we can finally hang onto LTE so your VoLTE can work and see less 3G" and while I do believe having that low band spectrum has its place (especially in more rural situations) Its cost does not outway its benefits unfortunately especially coming from Sprint.

For Tmobile, it was a no brainier, simply  because they truly lacked spectrum, not because they saw it as this huge technical advancement over their other holdings.

Now if somehow they could have secured 60Mhz+ of 600mhz, I would have been singing a different tune.

One of Sprint’s primary justifications for the merger is the combination of T-Mobile’s 600 MHz holdings and Sprint’s 2.5 GHz holdings. Lowband is specifically highlighted as an essential part of a competitive 5G national footprint. (https://newtmobile.com/content/uploads/2018/04/CREATING-ROBUST-COMPETITION-IN-THE-5G-ERA-2.pdf) Masa’s/Marcelo’s decision (to the extent that Marcelo had any say or influence) to entirely pass on the 600 MHz auction meant that it could only come from T-Mobile through a merger. So if the merger fails, Sprint won’t get any of it, and SoftBank will be left holding the bag on an asset that I believe it further devalued to its detriment through taking this risky approach.

As for Band 12 and Band 26 for T-Mobile and Sprint respectively:

T-Mobile has had VoLTE for some time now (initial growing pains acknowledged) while Sprint still doesn’t have it live for customer use. (Sprint’s CEO has just said “coming soon” which is encouraging.) T-Mobile’s Band 12 helped make its network more reliable (as it now covers 80% of Americans) (source: https://www.t-mobile.com/news/extended-range-lte-puerto-rico) and 600 MHz will further help with overall network reliability and propagation. “Hanging onto LTE” and “less 3G” is what Sprint needs for VoLTE to be launched. From what I’ve heard, Sprint’s “Time on LTE” needs to be in the high 90’s percentage-wise to have a reliable VoLTE experience... and this ties directly into Capex aside from spectrum holdings.

Sprint can’t deploy 800 MHz in a number of areas, and it’s not even a full 5 MHz in some cases. There’s no clear timeframe for when will this be resolved, but each month we hope to see an update in the FCC Filing Sprint submits (which also updates the typo on the second page: “toatl”, that I’ve seen for the past few at least.) (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10702046805899/800 MHz Monthly Report for July 2018.pdf)

60 MHz+ of 600 MHz? How would this happen? (https://www.t-mobile.com/news/extended-range-lte-puerto-rico)

“In April 2017, T-Mobile made its largest network investment ever, tripling its low-band spectrum holdings by purchasing 45% of the spectrum sold in the US government’s 600 MHz auction -- 31 MHz nationwide on average and a whopping 50 MHz in Puerto Rico! These holdings cover 100% of the US, including Puerto Rico.”

———————

Perhaps SoftBank’s case for a merger would have been undermined if Sprint had acquired lowband Spectrum. Maybe that’s why Sprint passed on the auction?

If Sprint had acquired this spectrum, it wouldn’t have “the lack of it” as an argument for the merger. It would have to settle on arguing competitive scale, which is a less compelling case in my opinion. Regulators could simply see Sprint is an undercapitalized asset of SoftBank, a monster conglomerate, and not lacking in scale. That’s what we were all hoping for when SoftBank acquired it. So, if this merger fails to go through for whatever reason, I wonder what SoftBank will be willing to kick-in in terms of capital.

Share this post


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

One of Sprint’s primary justifications for the merger is the combination of T-Mobile’s 600 MHz holdings and Sprint’s 2.5 GHz holdings. Lowband is specifically highlighted as an essential part of a competitive 5G national footprint. (https://newtmobile.com/content/uploads/2018/04/CREATING-ROBUST-COMPETITION-IN-THE-5G-ERA-2.pdf) Masa’s/Marcelo’s decision (to the extent that Marcelo had any say or influence) to entirely pass on the 600 MHz auction meant that it could only come from T-Mobile through a merger. So if the merger fails, Sprint won’t get any of it, and SoftBank will be left holding the bag on an asset that I believe it further devalued to its detriment through taking this risky approach.

As for Band 12 and Band 26 for T-Mobile and Sprint respectively:

T-Mobile has had VoLTE for some time now (initial growing pains acknowledged) while Sprint still doesn’t have it live for customer use. (Sprint’s CEO has just said “coming soon” which is encouraging.) T-Mobile’s Band 12 helped make its network more reliable (as it now covers 80% of Americans) (source: https://www.t-mobile.com/news/extended-range-lte-puerto-rico) and 600 MHz will further help with overall network reliability and propagation. “Hanging onto LTE” and “less 3G” is what Sprint needs for VoLTE to be launched. From what I’ve heard, Sprint’s “Time on LTE” needs to be in the high 90’s percentage-wise to have a reliable VoLTE experience... and this ties directly into Capex aside from spectrum holdings.

Sprint can’t deploy 800 MHz in a number of areas, and it’s not even a full 5 MHz in some cases. There’s no clear timeframe for when will this be resolved, but each month we hope to see an update in the FCC Filing Sprint submits (which also updates the typo on the second page: “toatl”, that I’ve seen for the past few at least.) (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10702046805899/800 MHz Monthly Report for July 2018.pdf)

60 MHz+ of 600 MHz? How would this happen? (https://www.t-mobile.com/news/extended-range-lte-puerto-rico)

“In April 2017, T-Mobile made its largest network investment ever, tripling its low-band spectrum holdings by purchasing 45% of the spectrum sold in the US government’s 600 MHz auction -- 31 MHz nationwide on average and a whopping 50 MHz in Puerto Rico! These holdings cover 100% of the US, including Puerto Rico.”

———————

Perhaps SoftBank’s case for a merger would have been undermined if Sprint had acquired lowband Spectrum. Maybe that’s why Sprint passed on the auction?

If Sprint had acquired this spectrum, it wouldn’t have “the lack of it” as an argument for the merger. It would have to settle on arguing competitive scale, which is a less compelling case in my opinion. Regulators could simply see Sprint is an undercapitalized asset of SoftBank, a monster conglomerate, and not lacking in scale. That’s what we were all hoping for when SoftBank acquired it. So, if this merger fails to go through for whatever reason, I wonder what SoftBank will be willing to kick-in in terms of capital.

We are gonna have to agree to disagree at this point. Also FYI I don't know of any location where Sprint only has 5mhz of B26. Typically they have over 10Mhz nationwide on average, which covers upstream downstream and guard band. 

At the end of the day, Tmobile will end up deploying 5x5 and 10x10 on average.

Share this post


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

We are gonna have to agree to disagree at this point. Also FYI I don't know of any location where Sprint only has 5mhz of B26. Typically they have over 10Mhz nationwide on average, which covers upstream downstream and guard band. 

That’s fair.

According to this Wall article (http://s4gru.com/entry/429-psa-sprint-begins-band-13-deployment-in-puerto-rico/), Sprint’s Band 26 is either 5x5, 3x3 or non-existent.

 

Share this post


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

That’s fair.

According to this Wall article (http://s4gru.com/entry/429-psa-sprint-begins-band-13-deployment-in-puerto-rico/), Sprint’s Band 26 is either 5x5, 3x3 or non-existent.

 

My understanding is that they have 13MHz of it nationwide which allows them to deploy a 5x5 + 1x800 + guard band. It's only 3x3 in areas where they aren't the primary carrier using the spectrum like in certain border areas. They were supposed to be 3x3 in SoLinc territory too but ultimately they worked out a deal that allowed them to deploy 5x5. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

If Sprint kept its capex at its current level for the next two or three quarters (highly unlikely at this point) they would be perfectly fine and in a good position to launch 5G in a big way.

 Sprint could spend 7 billion a year for the next 5 years and their is no guarantee or even likelihood of them catching up to or surpassing the big two becauee they will be spending 10 billion a year. A dollar of CAPEX is a dollar of capex and sprint doesnt have access to any better engineers than anyone else. 

Even if their network improved on their foot print to become substantially better than their competition they would still have to compete on price because their foot print wouls be substantially smaller that everyone else's. Sprint, as a stand alone company, will go the way of leap wireless. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My understanding is that they have 13MHz of it nationwide which allows them to deploy a 5x5 + 1x800 + guard band. It's only 3x3 in areas where they aren't the primary carrier using the spectrum like in certain border areas. They were supposed to be 3x3 in SoLinc territory too but ultimately they worked out a deal that allowed them to deploy 5x5. 

They 14Mhz nationwide even in Solinc territory except for Puerto Rico. Now they have not fully rebanded in the IBEZ areas (that's where they have 3x3 LTE) and San Bernardino County. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, utiz4321 said:

 Sprint could 7 billion a year for the next 5 years and their is no guarantee or even likelihood of them catching up to or surpassing the big two becauee they will be spending 10 billion a year. A dollar of CAPEX is a dollar of capex and sprint doesnt have access to any better engineers than anyone else. 

Even if their network improved on their foot print to become substantially better than their competition they would still have to compete on price because their foot print wouls be substantially smaller that everyone else's. Sprint, as a stand alone company, will go the way of leap wireless. 

Exactly.

Given SoftBank’s original intent was always to merge with T-Mobile, it should have provided the necessary capital to ensure Sprint would have the majority/controlling stake should it happen or to be a stronger competitor should the merger fail. It’s inexplicable to me why Masa didn’t ensure this.

Share this post


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

Exactly.

Given SoftBank’s original intent was always to merge with T-Mobile, it should have provided the necessary capital to ensure Sprint would have the majority/controlling stake should it happen or to be a stronger competitor should the merger fail. It’s inexplicable to me why Masa didn’t ensure this.

It is easy, because investing in sprint as a stand alone player in 2013 didnt make any sense. Masa said as much, he said that if AT&T had bought tmobile he wouldnt have invested in Sprint. Sprint would have been more attractive as a stand alone player covering the low in market under a market where they only had to compete with AT&T and Verizon. He wanted to get the market to three equal players and reap the rewards of creating that third player, there was no other oppertunity in the US wireless market. They spent the last 5 years proving that. We are getting to three players, one way or the other. The good news is, that if their is a market opportunity created by only having three players dish is out there still. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, utiz4321 said:

 Sprint could spend 7 billion a year for the next 5 years and their is no guarantee or even likelihood of them catching up to or surpassing the big two becauee they will be spending 10 billion a year. A dollar of CAPEX is a dollar of capex and sprint doesnt have access to any better engineers than anyone else. 

Even if their network improved on their foot print to become substantially better than their competition they would still have to compete on price because their foot print wouls be substantially smaller that everyone else's. Sprint, as a stand alone company, will go the way of leap wireless. 

Sprint does not need to be ultra competitive in every single market to be successful. They just need to be the fastest in the big cities (which they can achieve in almost no time considering they have all the building blocks in place) All the other carriers are running on ALL CYLINDERS, while Sprint has tons and tons of headroom. (4x4MIMO, Massive MIMO, 4xCA, 5xCA etc) If Sprint went balls to the wall starting TODAY in most major cities, they would easily match or surpass the competition.

But unfortunately, that will not bold well for their pity tour in congress. You know "funding" is a huuuge issue, also, why would they do that at this stage in the game? It would take YEARS to build up customer base to a substantial level where Softbank is comfortable.

 

Share this post


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

Sprint does not need to be ultra competitive in every single market to be successful. They just need to be the fastest in the big cities (which they can achieve in almost no time considering they have all the building blocks in place) All the other carriers are running on ALL CYLINDERS, while Sprint has tons and tons of headroom. (4x4MIMO, Massive MIMO, 4xCA, 5xCA etc) If Sprint went balls to the wall starting TODAY in most major cities, they would easily match or surpass the competition.

But unfortunately, that will not bold well for their pity tour in congress. You know "funding" is a huuuge issue, also, why would they do that at this stage in the game? It would take YEARS to build up customer base to a substantial level where Softbank is comfortable.

 

This is only true is sprint wants to be a leap wireless of 5g.  Unfortunately, that will leave us with two national players and two leaps. That woukd be an awful market. Sprint and T mobile are not competitive on their own. I admired what t mobile was able to do, but it lacks a road map to 5g with out sprint and sprint lacks the resources with out T mobile. 

 

The 4 national carrier market is a fantasy and the market keeps telling us this. It is 2 national carriers and 2 leap/metro type carriers or 3 national carriers in the 5g world. I think three national carriers is a better rout and so does the market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet TMO with that smaller amount of spectrum will be a couple years ahead of where Sprint will be.

Can't wait to see what Neville and his team can do with the jackpot of 2.5ghz Sprint has.

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

Sprint does not need to be ultra competitive in every single market to be successful. They just need to be the fastest in the big cities (which they can achieve in almost no time considering they have all the building blocks in place) All the other carriers are running on ALL CYLINDERS, while Sprint has tons and tons of headroom. (4x4MIMO, Massive MIMO, 4xCA, 5xCA etc) If Sprint went balls to the wall starting TODAY in most major cities, they would easily match or surpass the competition.

But unfortunately, that will not bold well for their pity tour in congress. You know "funding" is a huuuge issue, also, why would they do that at this stage in the game? It would take YEARS to build up customer base to a substantial level where Softbank is comfortable.

 

I agree that Sprint has plenty of potential, much more than its competitors have in certain ways as you mentioned.

However, Sprint’s Band 41 deployment won’t be at a “substantial majority” until the end of Fiscal 2018, which is almost a year from now... and that doesn’t mean “completed”. Based on this disclosed timeline, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of “in no time”. Is this a “Balls to the Wall” deployment schedule? It’s hard to know for sure.

What do you mean by “pity tour”? Is Sprint misleading Congress/FCC on the necessity of the merger?

As for funding, Sprint needs to keep building/spending as if this merger won’t be approved, and accelerate it... because if it doesn’t and if the merger is rejected, Sprint could fall further behind with respect to the competition.

As for building up the customer base, if the merger is rejected, Sprint will have years ahead of it to do that... and hopefully SoftBank is willing to pitch in some capital to help it along.

Edited by RedSpark
Grammar

Share this post


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

“Hanging onto LTE” and “less 3G” is what Sprint needs for VoLTE to be launched. From what I’ve heard, Sprint’s “Time on LTE” needs to be in the high 90’s percentage-wise to have a reliable VoLTE experience... and this ties directly into Capex aside from spectrum holdings.

Hanging on to LTE and having usable VoLTE are two entirely different things. For VoLTE to be successful, handsets will need to have a very good uplink or users will experience choppy phone calls.

I've personally seen this on T-Mobile where I still have usable download speeds on weak Rx (~-117 RSRP). Unfortunately, people on the other end can't hear me because the phone cannot properly reach the macro site. With Sprint's current network, I have a feeling VoLTE won't play nice and there will be a lot of headaches.

Share this post


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

Hanging on to LTE and having usable VoLTE are two entirely different things. For VoLTE to be successful, handsets will need to have a very good uplink or users will experience choppy phone calls.

I've personally seen this on T-Mobile where I still have usable download speeds on weak Rx (~-117 RSRP). Unfortunately, people on the other end can't hear me because the phone cannot properly reach the macro site. With Sprint's current network, I have a feeling VoLTE won't play nice and there will be a lot of headaches.

Hopefully Calling Plus stress tested the network sufficiently to ensure adequate VoLTE performance. Also, the relative maturity of VoLTE at this point may help Sprint’s deployment as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Hopefully Calling Plus stress tested the network sufficiently to ensure adequate VoLTE performance. Also, the relative maturity of VoLTE at this point may help Sprint’s deployment as well.

I am thinking that VOLTE will probably prefer band 25 and 26 since they can provide much better upload speeds than band 41. Or they can  use band 25 as upload while using band 41 for download. I have a question though, what happens to 1x800 after the merger. Do they keep it for a while to service Machine to Machine existing contracts?

Edited by bigsnake49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone experienced T mobile roaming yet? I think we are past the 60 day mark now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Has anyone experienced T mobile roaming yet? I think we are past the 60 day mark now. 

Nope still roaming on Verizon when I lose service which isn't often.

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

×