Jump to content

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, SprintNYC said:

The stock price is tanking today on the fear that less than 40% of this merger getting approved by the DOJ. 

ouch, 40% or less? Thats pretty much saying "give it up Deelishis, you look like a man" (flavor of love quote). All jokes aside, if its predicted to be that low then its going to be BAU. Sprint lacking scale and T-Mobile lacking resource for 5G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that’s just Wall St. knee jerk pessimism. I’d bet the odds are greater than 50/50 for sure. The CEOs were on tv this morning and they are hitting all the talking points hard. No job cuts, increase investment leading to job creation, rural buildout, etc. Plus they really are pushing the 5G angle and working in national security fears of China gaining the upper hand. And behind closed doors they’ll push the idea that they can’t compete without it which will cause the industry to stagnate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the earlier discussion about the number of cell sites being turned off, I did a little bit of an analysis.  I used Spotsylvania County, VA as my example case, excluding the Shentel area.  I put both the Sprint and T-Mobile sites on a map.  The total number of sites is 18.  Of those, 12 are shared between Sprint and T-Mobile.  Of the remaining six, 5 are Sprint-only and 1 is T-Mobile only.  While the 1 T-Mobile only site is kind of near one of the Sprint-only sites, both are on I-95 and AT&T is actually on both towers, so I would expect them to keep both.

So even though 2/3 of the Sprint sites would presumably go away in Spotsylvania County, the actual change in service would be effectively zero.

- Trip

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Trip said:

To the earlier discussion about the number of cell sites being turned off, I did a little bit of an analysis.  I used Spotsylvania County, VA as my example case, excluding the Shentel area.  I put both the Sprint and T-Mobile sites on a map.  The total number of sites is 18.  Of those, 12 are shared between Sprint and T-Mobile.  Of the remaining six, 5 are Sprint-only and 1 is T-Mobile only.  While the 1 T-Mobile only site is kind of near one of the Sprint-only sites, both are on I-95 and AT&T is actually on both towers, so I would expect them to keep both.

So even though 2/3 of the Sprint sites would presumably go away in Spotsylvania County, the actual change in service would be effectively zero.

- Trip

Great analysis. I will do this for the ABQ market as well. I am interested in the New Co coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Trip said:

To the earlier discussion about the number of cell sites being turned off, I did a little bit of an analysis.  I used Spotsylvania County, VA as my example case, excluding the Shentel area.  I put both the Sprint and T-Mobile sites on a map.  The total number of sites is 18.  Of those, 12 are shared between Sprint and T-Mobile.  Of the remaining six, 5 are Sprint-only and 1 is T-Mobile only.  While the 1 T-Mobile only site is kind of near one of the Sprint-only sites, both are on I-95 and AT&T is actually on both towers, so I would expect them to keep both.

So even though 2/3 of the Sprint sites would presumably go away in Spotsylvania County, the actual change in service would be effectively zero.

- Trip

Seeing those numbers really came to a shock for me. Granted I recently decided to fully support this merger, it does seem sad that so much of Sprint's network is going to be dismantled, regardless of the merger's advantages of having the spectrum being put to good use finally on all towers. Yes we will see the deployment numbers where we've been hoping for many years to have, but in terms of density - this isn't so good as some, including myself thought it would be.

So, as I understand it now - please correct me if I'm wrong about this  the "new" T-Mobile is in fact keeping 85,000 of Sprint's network sites, but eliminating the rest, or 35,000 of them? I'm curious how many T-Mobile sites there currently are and how much there will be after this convergence. Also, how many sites does AT&T and Verizon singularly have? I'm interested in the density figures too, not just spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've been reading is that the combined network would have 120,000 sites, and they're planning to shut down 35,000 of them, leaving 85,000.  That's about 30%.

Going back to the Spotsylvania County example, counting it that way, there are 30 sites.  12 of the Sprint sites are co-located with T-Mobile sites.  Turning those off would decrease the total number of sites by 40%, but there would be no change in coverage.

- Trip

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Trip said:

What I've been reading is that the combined network would have 120,000 sites, and they're planning to shut down 35,000 of them, leaving 85,000.  That's about 30%.

Going back to the Spotsylvania County example, counting it that way, there are 30 sites.  12 of the Sprint sites are co-located with T-Mobile sites.  Turning those off would decrease the total number of sites by 40%, but there would be no change in coverage.

- Trip

Yup. That's what's laid out here in the bullet points on Slide 22: https://allfor5g.com/content/uploads/2018/04/CREATING-ROBUST-COMPETITION-IN-THE-5G-ERA.pdf

I guess Magic Boxes are dead as part of this?

What about HPUE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Trip said:

What I've been reading is that the combined network would have 120,000 sites, and they're planning to shut down 35,000 of them, leaving 85,000.  That's about 30%.

Going back to the Spotsylvania County example, counting it that way, there are 30 sites.  12 of the Sprint sites are co-located with T-Mobile sites.  Turning those off would decrease the total number of sites by 40%, but there would be no change in coverage.

- Trip

120,000 sites is a great amount. Be neat to have figures for the Chicago area. I remember reading some time ago the number of Sprint sites was over 1,000 -maybe around 1,200, is that right?

Also curious about the AT&T and Verizon numbers too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Arysyn said:

120,000 sites is a great amount. Be neat to have figures for the Chicago area. I remember reading some time ago the number of Sprint sites was over 1,000 -maybe around 1,200, is that right?

Also curious about the AT&T and Verizon numbers too.

Well, to be more precise, right now they have a combined 110,000 sites. They will decommission 35,000 and build 10,000 new sites for a net of 85,000 sites. They will also add 40,000 small cells to their already existing 10,000.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bigsnake49 said:

I expect that it will have a little bit more technical detail and informed speculation :).

This one will be a little more like all of the other ones just to get something up on the wall. We'll start to delve deeper technically later when we 1) have more time and 2) know more. Everything on that end has been pretty vague so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

This one will be a little more like all of the other ones just to get something up on the wall. We'll start to delve deeper technically later when we 1) have more time and 2) know more. Everything on that end has been pretty vague so far.

That's where informed speculation and educated guesses come in. ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

Yup. That's what's laid out here in the bullet points on Slide 22: https://allfor5g.com/content/uploads/2018/04/CREATING-ROBUST-COMPETITION-IN-THE-5G-ERA.pdf

I guess Magic Boxes are dead as part of this?

What about HPUE?

HPUE will stick around because it's part of the Band 41 spec at this point. Magic Boxes will probably continue as well as a small cell solution since they are a benefit to the network as a whole. One of the things about Magic Boxes that is notable is their ability to turn into WiFi hotspots so if the "New T-Mobile" decides it wants to go the WISP route down the line, they have the ability to do so using them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

HPUE will stick around because it's part of the Band 41 spec at this point. Magic Boxes will probably continue as well as a small cell solution since they are a benefit to the network as a whole. One of the things about Magic Boxes that is notable is their ability to turn into WiFi hotspots so if the "New T-Mobile" decides it wants to go the WISP route down the line, they have the ability to do so using them.

That's good to know about HPUE.

I've seen this about WiFi on the AirUnity Box spec sheets: https://www.airspan.com/airunity/

A free-standing unit with wireless backhual which can be placed on window sills, tables and shelfs. It supports LTE-A (FDD or TDD) and an optional WiFi AP (802.11n concurrent with 802.11ac). AirUnity is composed of an eNB for access, and a standard high-performance UE relay for wireless backhaul.

The brochure has more info on the WiFi specs: https://www.airspan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Airunity-Product-Spec-Sheets-Mar2018.pdf

Assuming this feature is built-in, why hasn't Sprint enabled it yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

That's good to know about HPUE.

I've seen this about WiFi on the AirUnity Box spec sheets: https://www.airspan.com/airunity/

A free-standing unit with wireless backhual which can be placed on window sills, tables and shelfs. It supports LTE-A (FDD or TDD) and an optional WiFi AP (802.11n concurrent with 802.11ac). AirUnity is composed of an eNB for access, and a standard high-performance UE relay for wireless backhaul.

The brochure has more info on the WiFi specs: https://www.airspan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Airunity-Product-Spec-Sheets-Mar2018.pdf

Assuming this feature is built-in, why hasn't Sprint enabled it yet?

Because they don't want a wifi hotspot that any device can connect to. Just to extend coverage for paying customers on their Sprint devices. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, caspar347 said:

Well, assuming this goes through I can't wait for a bunch of non-redundant Sprint sites to be decomm'ed Nextel/clearwire style ?

Nah I don't think they'll actually do that. T-Mobile's coverage is generally already better than Sprint's for LTE, and their goal is to compete with AT&T and Verizon. They will at least maintain coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Thomas L. said:

Nah I don't think they'll actually do that. T-Mobile's coverage is generally already better than Sprint's for LTE, and their goal is to compete with AT&T and Verizon. They will at least maintain coverage.

eKdqkHo.gif

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

There are certainly some interesting questions I can think of.

Are you going to try to submit some? ?

Say you're with "S4GRU & Partners".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • I think it is likely that T-Mobile will be forced to honor any existing US cellular roaming agreements in those areas as a condition of them taking over the spectrum.  In that case, there would be no improvement of service unless T-Mobile improves the service offering in those areas.
    • My understanding is the MNO carriers are the one who have objected to the use of cell phones in commercial planes.  I understand that it ties down too many cell phones at once, thus I can not see this changing. However this depends on how it is structured. Use of a different plmn for satellite service might make it possible for planes only to connect with satellite. Private pilots have been using cellphones in planes for many decades. Far fewer phones at a lower altitude.
    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...