Jump to content

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Jobs are being lost all the time. The jobs numbers you see reported are NET.  That means minus jobs lost plus jobs added. 

T-Sprint will not add a higher count of jobs vs lost, at the end of the day, will be net loss of jobs. (by the thousands)

Too much overlap, even in the best scenario it will be a job loser.

Long term that is less clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why anyone thinks this merger is going to lead to job losses in the short term that would intersect with political issues. In the short term mergers nearly always generate job gains as the companies integrate. This will be especially true in this case as there is physical equipment to be moved. Long term yes jobs will be lost but why would any politician care about the long term. In this case we are talking a network integration time of 3 years and at the same time network upgrades. Feet on the ground will be needed. Many of this pool of labor is the voter trump would be trying to influence. Upper and upper middle class isn't his wheelhouse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nexgencpu said:

T-Sprint will not add a higher count of jobs vs lost, at the end of the day, will be net loss of jobs. (by the thousands)

Too much overlap, even in the best scenario it will be a job loser.

Long term that is less clear. 

Sprint and Tmobile are not going to lie to regulators. The risks are too great. Even if it lead to 10000 jobs lost the economy has been adding 100000s a month. Chill out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2018 at 1:28 PM, ase500 said:

I am not sure why anyone thinks this merger is going to lead to job losses in the short term that would intersect with political issues. In the short term mergers nearly always generate job gains as the companies integrate. This will be especially true in this case as there is physical equipment to be moved. Long term yes jobs will be lost but why would any politician care about the long term. In this case we are talking a network integration time of 3 years and at the same time network upgrades. Feet on the ground will be needed. Many of this pool of labor is the voter trump would be trying to influence. Upper and upper middle class isn't his wheelhouse.

i see the whole merger as a few things...for one a cash cow for softbank ..because in the end it saves lots of cash...and puts some positive cash flow back into soft banks profits...and that this will also make softbank give up pretty much all control to tmobile... now i can definitely say with the new incoming either senate or congress... they will definitely make em divest spectrum.. and other infrasturcture... also i have a feeling there maybe a new MNVO that comes out of this...

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

13 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

i see the whole merger as a few things...for one a cash cow for softbank ..because in the end it saves lots of cash...and puts some positive cash flow back into soft banks profits...and that this will also make softbank give up pretty much all control to tmobile... now i can definitely say with the new incoming either senate or congress... they will definitely make em divest spectrum.. and other infrasturcture... also i have a feeling there maybe a new MNVO that comes out of this...

Most of this garbled and incoherent. Softbank is not giving up much control. They get 2 seats on the board and voting stock. Had this deal just been about getting cash Softbank would have taken the deal before, when there was no seats and the stock was nonvoting. Mergers never save money in the short term, so it is always about longterm growth and overall profits. Political issues are completely nonsense, modern politics is about the short game. These are going to be freshman congressman.[FYI Congress is both the House and Senate so saying Senate or Congress makes you look ignorant] Congress has already held hearings on this. And we are at regulatory review. All Congress could really do at this point is sue to stop it, which without regulators on there side would be downright stupid.(Not saying it couldn't happen, just that it would be stupid.) Any request for divestment in spectrum is going to come from the FCC not Congress. And has almost certainly been discussed. I doubt any major divestitures will be required as much of the spectrum is the catalyst for the merger in the first place. It is quite apparent that many here simply do not understand the process of mergers or the government involvement in them. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was unsure of which one to say so I said both just for the sake of saying it. therefore I'm not ignorant. So therefore the attitude is not warranted. But I still see two seats on the board and voting stock as minimal control. They obviously don't want to give up most of the control to T-Mobile. That was an issue for SoftBank in the past.

Most of this garbled and incoherent. Softbank is not giving up much control. They get 2 seats on the board and voting stock. Had this deal just been about getting cash Softbank would have taken the deal before, when there was no seats and the stock was nonvoting. Mergers never save money in the short term, so it is always about longterm growth and overall profits. Political issues are completely nonsense, modern politics is about the short game. These are going to be freshman congressman.[FYI Congress is both the House and Senate so saying Senate or Congress makes you look ignorant] Congress has already held hearings on this. And we are at regulatory review. All Congress could really do at this point is sue to stop it, which without regulators on there side would be downright stupid.(Not saying it couldn't happen, just that it would be stupid.) Any request for divestment in spectrum is going to come from the FCC not Congress. And has almost certainly been discussed. I doubt any major divestitures will be required as much of the spectrum is the catalyst for the merger in the first place. It is quite apparent that many here simply do not understand the process of mergers or the government involvement in them. 


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2018 at 4:39 AM, ase500 said:

Softbank is not giving up much control. They get 2 seats on the board and voting stock. Had this deal just been about getting cash Softbank would have taken the deal before, when there was no seats and the stock was nonvoting. Mergers never save money in the short term, so it is always about longterm growth and overall profits. 

I doubt any major divestitures will be required as much of the spectrum is the catalyst for the merger in the first place.

The key item to watch with the FCC will be if MM bands get counted.  They could go down to almost the tower level in terms of what coverage is required.  I would certainly expect the FCC to spend a lot of time on how customer's phones are treated.

On 12/1/2018 at 7:43 AM, danlodish345 said:

They obviously don't want to give up most of the control to T-Mobile. That was an issue for SoftBank in the past.

 

The real comparison to observe in the future is if Softbank puts in more money for more control and quicker 5G or sells out at a much later date.  The closest comparison is Verizon and Vodaphone's control of Verizon Wireless.  Ultimately Verizon bought out Vodaphone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So pretty much Verizon owns itself?

The real comparison to observe in the future is if Softbank puts in more money for more control and quicker 5G or sells out at a much later date.  The closest comparison is Verizon and Vodaphone's control of Verizon Wireless.  Ultimately Verizon bought out Vodaphone. 


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, danlodish345 said:

So pretty much Verizon owns itself?

 


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

Yes.  https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-completes-acquisition-vodafones-45-percent-indirect-interest-verizon-wireless

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Still cheaper than using Verizon or AT&T, I priced out a comparable plan with Verizon the other day, I pay roughly $~200 a month for two lines unlimited everything HD streaming etc with  the best plan and Verizon for a somewhat comparable plan with video only at 720p would be just under $300 a month screw that.

Edited by BlueAngel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BlueAngel said:

Still cheaper than using Verizon or AT&T, I priced out a comparable plan with Verizon the other day, I pay roughly $~200 a month for two lines unlimited everything HD streaming etc with  the best plan and Verizon for a somewhat comparable plan with video only at 720p would be just under $300 a month screw that.

I swap 10-15 times a year between 5 lines. That would mean an additional $300 just to do something Sprint customers do for free. Not just that, Sprint is launching eSim support now to make things even more straight forward. 

No thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swap 10-15 times a year between 5 lines. That would mean an additional $300 just to do something Sprint customers do for free. Not just that, Sprint is launching eSim support now to make things even more straight forward. 
https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/12/03/metro-by-t-mobile-now-charges-a-15-fee-every-time-you-swap-phones/. This is absolutely ridiculous

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

I swap 10-15 times a year between 5 lines. That would mean an additional $300 just to do something Sprint customers do for free. Not just that, Sprint is launching eSim support now to make things even more straight forward. 

No thanks!

I don't ever swap phones, that's unfortunate for you however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nexgencpu said:

Im hoping they never merge, and in fact, I will enjoy their separation for as long as possible.

I don't see Sprint lasting long without a merger, the service is already falling behind the others, had a friend switch from at&t and they immediately regretted their decision and went back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BlueAngel said:

I don't see Sprint lasting long without a merger, the service is already falling behind the others, had a friend switch from at&t and they immediately regretted their decision and went back. 

Not in my city, Sprint is currently the fastest! Especially after LTE-A was pushed out a couple of weeks ago!

https://twitter.com/SprintCTO/status/1068227212233633792

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel bad for Sprint being taken over by such a crappy company.

I don't see Sprint lasting long without a merger, the service is already falling behind the others, had a friend switch from at&t and they immediately regretted their decision and went back. 


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • Confused 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

    • A heavy n41 overlay as an acquisition condition would be a win for customers, and eventually a win for T-Mobile as that might be enough to preclude VZW/AT&T adding C-Band for FWA due to spreading the market too thinly (which means T-Mobile would just have local WISPs/wireline ISPs as competition). USCC spacing (which is likely for contiguous 700 MHz LTE coverage in rural areas) isn't going to be enough for contiguous n41 anyway, and I doubt they'll densify enough to get there.
    • Boost Infinite with a rainbow SIM (you can get it SIM-only) is the cheapest way, at $25/mo, to my knowledge; the cheaper Boost Mobile plans don't run on Dish native. Check Phonescoop for n70 support on a given phone; the Moto G 5G from last year may be the cheapest unlocked phone with n70 though data speeds aren't as good as something with an X70 or better modem.
    • Continuing the USCC discussion, if T-Mobile does a full equipment swap at all of USCC's sites, which they probably will for vendor consistency, and if they include 2.5 on all of those sites, which they probably will as they definitely have economies of scale on the base stations, that'll represent a massive capacity increase in those areas over what USCC had, and maybe a coverage increase since n71 will get deployed everywhere and B71 will get deployed any time T-Mobile has at least 25x25, and maybe where they have 20x20. Assuming this deal goes through (I'm betting it does), I figure I'll see contiguous coverage in the area of southern IL where I was attempting to roam on USCC the last time I was there, though it might be late next year before that switchover happens.
    • Forgot to post this, but a few weeks ago I got to visit these small cells myself! They're spread around Grant park and the surrounding areas, but unfortunately none of the mmwave cells made it outside of the parks along the lake into the rest of downtown. I did spot some n41 small cells around downtown, but they seemed to be older deployments limited to 100mhz and performed poorly.    
    • What is the cheapest way to try Dish's wireless network?  Over the past year I've seen them add their equipment to just about every cell site here, I'm assuming just go through Boost's website?  What phones are Dish native?  
  • Recently Browsing

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