Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

[dro1984]

Dan, how do you know this?  I'm having trouble with you being so sure "Well I know the government will definitely make them divest some of their Spectrum."    Really?    Nobody knows anything yet!   

[danlodish345]

Dan, how do you know this?  I'm having trouble with you being so sure "Well I know the government will definitely make them divest some of their Spectrum."    Really?    Nobody knows anything yet!   

Nah I m just saying that based on past mergers some of them jad to divest some spectrum...so it's a high possibility....

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[dro1984]

Agreed...but just a possibility.. maybe a 50/50 chance...   Don't really know.    

With the current administration, nothing can be taken for grated.   Nobody is completely on or not on board with the merger as to the  DOJ or FCC.  Anything can happen which is why Sprint and T-Mobile are and will be at both agencies frequently for the time being.   Official paper work for the merger will be filed by months end with the government parties (FCC and DOJ).     

[jefbal99]

23 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

Well I know the government will definitely make them divest some of their Spectrum. But if they don't divest some the merger won't happen.

Rather than a divestment, to ensure the new three carrier system, I'd rather see a requirement of 4G coverage matching the Blue/Red in 36 months and 5G that overlays 4G.

[dnicekid]

I think the arguement could be made NOT to divest spectrum. Yes it’s alot however everyone is looking to get more. So give up some to then need more as the 5g and the user base grows? 

Maybe forced to “swap” or sell but letting go of the spectrum if I was the NewT I wouldnt do and back out.

[danlodish345]

25 minutes ago, jefbal99 said:

Rather than a divestment, to ensure the new three carrier system, I'd rather see a requirement of 4G coverage matching the Blue/Red in 36 months and 5G that overlays 4G.

I want to see matched Verizon coverage...

[danlodish345]

54 minutes ago, jefbal99 said:

Rather than a divestment, to ensure the new three carrier system, I'd rather see a requirement of 4G coverage matching the Blue/Red in 36 months and 5G that overlays 4G.

Just show me the proper coverage. That's what I want from this merger. If it happens. I don't believe a single thing until it happens in front of my eyes. I want to see real world results

[utiz4321]

2 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

Nah I m just saying that based on past mergers some of them jad to divest some spectrum...so it's a high possibility....

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

I dont think they will. This admin. Put promarket people in the FCC and DOJ. The FCC is judt going to rubber stamp it, the DOJ might question it a bit more but it will go through as is. 

[danlodish345]

3 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

I dont think they will. This admin. Put promarket people in the FCC and DOJ. The FCC is judt going to rubber stamp it, the DOJ might question it a bit more but it will go through as is. 

 I will be willing to watch and wait

[Arysyn]

If any spectrum is to be divested, it certainly isn't going to be the spectrum that matters. I really don't understand why some people seem so excited, interested, really anticipating a spectrum divestment as if they're hoping for it and thinking the new combined company is going to be forced to lose 600mhz, PCS, AWS-1, or band41 spectrum. This simply isn't going to happen, period!

If any spectrum is going to be divested at all under any part of a deal with the government for it, that spectrum will be 800mhz spectrum. That will be quite useful for the government in having for public safety purposes. Also, it will be easy for the combined company to agree to spectrum trades with carriers that will streamline operations.

I think 700mhz would be a great divestment in favor of a potential merger for Dish's 600mhz spectrum which would boost T-Mobile's 600mhz to 20x20 nationwide, except in many areas where it would be more. T-Mobile ought to trade the overrun for adding spectrum in the then few remaining areas with 15x15 of the 600mhz spectrum.

If they could get Dish, AWS-3 could be traded with AT&T for more AWS-1 spectrum, along with any possibly needed PCS, which is likely not much needed to reach 20x20 for the new T-Mobile. As I've mentioned in a few past posts I've wrote, without Dish - the New T-Mobile should be able to form nationwide 20x20 600mhz with some major trading with Dish, at least. 20x20 PCS, and 20x20 AWS-1. With Dish, add on to that 20x20 AWS-4, giving them a total of 120mhz of mid-band spectrum, along with the 120mhz of band41, and the 40mhz of low-band spectrum.

This consolidation of national carriers will help increase very beneficial spectrum trades of wideband spectrum consolidation that will help produce such a great network quality among the national carriers. No company is actually looking towards losing spectrum anymore. Its all about gain and consolidation nowadays.

[derrph]

3 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

Well I know the government will definitely make them divest some of their Spectrum. But if they don't divest some the merger won't happen.

And that I think will be the major key here. That 2.5 is the bread and butter for their 5G and having to give some up would defeat the purpose of coming together. Another carrier will swoop in and buy up what Tmo/Sprint had to give up. If that happens...Then what? 

[danlodish345]

And that I think will be the major key here. That 2.5 is the bread and butter for their 5G and having to give some up would defeat the purpose of coming together. Another carrier will swoop in and buy up what Tmo/Sprint had to give up. If that happens...Then what? 

Well the thing is also that divesting so that high band Spectrum. I still see low band spectrum being key for 5g networks.. So high band is still costly to deploy...

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

4 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

Well the thing is also that divesting so that high band Spectrum. I still see low band spectrum being key for 5g networks.. So high band is still costly to deploy...

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

The New T-Mobile is trying to cover its bases by making a lot of promises that will require the use of all of the spectrum they have. They mention that they'll build a nationwide 5G network, which their lower bands spectrum holdings will be good for. But they have also been arguing that their competition will not only be Verizon and AT&T but also cable companies. Those comments combined with their commitment to becoming a WISP is where the high band is 100% a necessity. Without high-band spectrum, they wouldn't have the capacity to have both fixed wireless and mobile subscribers on their network in a way that effectively competes with other local ISPs. We can see that today with AT&T. Despite having a ton of spectrum they only allow fixed wireless in select rural areas and they do so with low data caps and high prices.

[danlodish345]

The New T-Mobile is trying to cover its bases by making a lot of promises that will require the use of all of the spectrum they have. They mention that they'll build a nationwide 5G network, which their lower bands spectrum holdings will be good for. But they have also been arguing that their competition will not only be Verizon and AT&T but also cable companies. Those comments combined with their commitment to becoming a WISP is where the high band is 100% a necessity. Without high-band spectrum, they wouldn't have the capacity to have both fixed wireless and mobile subscribers on their network in a way that effectively competes with other local ISPs. We can see that today with AT&T. Despite having a ton of spectrum they only allow fixed wireless in select rural areas and they do so with low data caps and high prices.

Okay well the problem I have is that it's all promises but more than half of that never comes to fruition. Obviously we need fixed Broadband access. But it's still in its infancy. I agree capacity and coverage reliability consistency and overall quality is needed. But it's starting to sound more likes the grounds of promises that who knows they'll be delivered upon. I want to see up front definitive proof that they can cover all their bases including the coverage part. I'm very skeptical at this point of what can be done and I have from past experiences don't believe it companies promises unless I see actual results right in front of my face. So first thing is this whole thing has to be approved obviously. After that if the merger is approved then it's time for them to put their money where their mouth is. It will be time for them to put up or shut up.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[danlodish345]

2 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

Okay well the problem I have is that it's all promises but more than half of that never comes to fruition. Obviously we need fixed Broadband access. But it's still in its infancy. I agree capacity and coverage reliability consistency and overall quality is needed. But it's starting to sound more likes the grounds of promises that who knows they'll be delivered upon. I want to see up front definitive proof that they can cover all their bases including the coverage part. I'm very skeptical at this point of what can be done and I have from past experiences don't believe it companies promises unless I see actual results right in front of my face. So first thing is this whole thing has to be approved obviously. After that if the merger is approved then it's time for them to put their money where their mouth is. It will be time for them to put up or shut up.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/fcc-tees-up-2-5-ghz-ebs-spectrum-reforms-for-5g there you go something I found

[belusnecropolis]

3 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

But it's still in its infancy.

Much to the chagrin and under reporting in the industry, many of us have been at this for years. We simply don't have another reliable option for access. Just got done building this actually, this should get me halfway to that gigabit access everyone keeps bragging about, Just over if I plug another radio into the USB.
\

4 hours ago, Paynefanbro said:

Despite having a ton of spectrum they only allow fixed wireless in select rural areas and they do so with low data caps and high prices.

It is terrible! Every time they come out with a new affordable consumer UDP, they shoot it down in a few months and put a cap on it. I am contracted into two priority lines with all band access, not letting those go.


 

[danlodish345]

It is terrible! Every time they come out with a new affordable consumer UDP, they shoot it down in a few months and put a cap on it. I am contracted into two priority lines with all band access, not letting those go.


 

Well nonetheless though widespread access will take a very long time to roll out and get the networks up to par and actually give unlimited data access at a very controlled and reasonable price.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

8 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/fcc-tees-up-2-5-ghz-ebs-spectrum-reforms-for-5g there you go something I found

If they want to do fixed wireless in rural areas they better get some of that rural 2.5GHz spectrum. Sprint has great 2.5GHz spectrum but it is concentrated in urban areas,

[iansltx]

On 5/11/2018 at 9:38 AM, bigsnake49 said:

If they want to do fixed wireless in rural areas they better get some of that rural 2.5GHz spectrum. Sprint has great 2.5GHz spectrum but it is concentrated in urban areas,

It's not, though. They may not have as much rural 2.5/2.6 due to other small providers having EBS (or, to a smaller extent, BRS), but they have enough out west of here to run 3xCA B41.

[Mr.Nuke]

Still vague on the details, but it will be curious to see how they go at this assuming the merger is approved.

Quote

"You identify the anchor network as we would call it, which is the T-Mobile network. You build and light up all of the spectrum assets of the company on that combined network," Ray said. "You add some scale to it, some density in key markets from the other network where it makes sense to avoid building that cost in over the following years. And then you start to migrate customers across from the Sprint network onto the New T-Mobile network,"

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-hopes-for-sprint-merger-approval-as-soon-as-next-month

[RedSpark]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

Still vague on the details, but it will be curious to see how they go at this assuming the merger is approved.

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-hopes-for-sprint-merger-approval-as-soon-as-next-month

Also see Slide 22 of the Merger Sales Pitch PDF: https://allfor5g.com/content/uploads/2018/04/CREATING-ROBUST-COMPETITION-IN-THE-5G-ERA-2.pdf

[Mr.Nuke]

8 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Also see Slide 22 of the Merger Sales Pitch PDF: https://allfor5g.com/content/uploads/2018/04/CREATING-ROBUST-COMPETITION-IN-THE-5G-ERA-2.pdf

Yeah I used that presentation and the analyst call as the source for the front page article here.

[RedSpark]

Sprint offers some employees bonuses to stay on board: report

[bigsnake49]

I think the key to having a successful merger is to immediately open up T-Mobile's PCS and AWS-1 data networks to Sprint customers. I think pretty much every LTE capable Sprint phone has band 2 (25) and 4 on it. Up to 20M might have band 12 on it. Newer phones might have band 66 on them. The moment that the merger is approved, have phones ready that can use both networks. Get Sprint to densify their network enough to duplicate 1x voice coverage and implement VOLTE even before the merger. Refarm all possible EVDO spectrum to LTE before the merger. Maybe use band 12 and 26 mainly for VOLTE after the merger. 

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by bigsnake49

[bigsnake49]

It seems that AT&T will not contest this merger:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-s-donovan-t-mobile-sprint-combo-we-won-t-contest-it