Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

[BlueAngel]

47 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

https://www.cnet.com/news/t-mobiles-john-legere-denies-justice-department-pushback-on-sprint-merger/

Hmmmmm.....

Interesting.

[Brad The Beast]

15 hours ago, dkyeager said:

Sprint tells one story to the regulators another for the quarterly reports.

I'm pretty sure they're making it sound doom and gloom to get the merger approved. We're seeing the opposite in the investor reports in which it would be illegal to lie to investors (AT&T is finding this out the hard way). I mean we've got 5G deploying in the 4 of the first 9 cities next month with the rest to follow in June. We're also already seeing them deploying these new Massive MIMO units elsewhere. If they're able to do that then they must be doing well enough. 

[Brad The Beast]

Sprint is improving. Data from RootMetrics shows that from 2H 2019 to 1H 2019:

Median download speeds in Ann Arbor, MI increased from 17.6Mbps to 33.2Mbps.

Median download speeds in Bakersfield, CA increased from 16.7Mbps 30.7Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Baton Rouge, LA increased from 9.7Mbps to 17.6Mbps.

Median download speeds in Boston, MA increased from 21.1Mbps to 30.2Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 49.9Mbps during the outdoor walk tests in the "dense urban core of Boston". 

Median download speeds in Buffalo, NY increased from 10.9Mbps to 29.3Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Detroit, MI increased from 18.1Mbps to 30.3Mbps. 

Median download speeds in El Paso, TX increased from 17.9Mbps to 28.5Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 28.5Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Flint, MI increased from 9.4Mbps to 33.4Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Fresno, CA increased from 5.6Mbps to 15.8Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Las Vegas, NV increased from 32.4Mbps to 45.7Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 45.7Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Milwaukee, WI increased from 14.7Mbps to 21.8Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Ogden, UT increased from 18.3Mbps to 36.5Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Philadelphia, PA from 19.5Mbps to 28.2Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Provo, UT increased from 19Mbps to 37.8Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 37.8Mbps.

Median download speeds in Rockford, IL increased from 19.8Mbps to 30.2Mbps.

Median download speeds in Sacramento, CA increased from 19.5Mbps to 35.5Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 35.5Mbps.

Median download speeds in Salt Lake City, UT increased from 20Mbps to 30.8Mbps. 

Median download speeds in San Jose, CA increased from 28.6Mbps to 37.4Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 37.4Mbps.

Median download speeds in Spokane, WA increased from 21.2Mbps to 29.6Mbps.

Median download speeds in Syracuse, NY increased from 28.3Mbps to 38.9Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Tucson, AZ increased from 12.9Mbps to 28.4Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Youngstown, OH increased from 19.1Mbps to 36.2Mbps. 

 

Not all cities have had 1H 2019 data gathered yet.

[Tengen31]

Sprint is improving. Data from RootMetrics shows that from 2H 2019 to 1H 2019:

Median download speeds in Ann Arbor, MI increased from 17.6Mbps to 33.2Mbps.

Median download speeds in Bakersfield, CA increased from 16.7Mbps 30.7Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Baton Rouge, LA increased from 9.7Mbps to 17.6Mbps.

Median download speeds in Boston, MA increased from 21.1Mbps to 30.2Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 49.9Mbps during the outdoor walk tests in the "dense urban core of Boston". 

Median download speeds in Buffalo, NY increased from 10.9Mbps to 29.3Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Detroit, MI increased from 18.1Mbps to 30.3Mbps. 

Median download speeds in El Paso, TX increased from 17.9Mbps to 28.5Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 28.5Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Flint, MI increased from 9.4Mbps to 33.4Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Fresno, CA increased from 5.6Mbps to 15.8Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Las Vegas, NV increased from 32.4Mbps to 45.7Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 45.7Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Milwaukee, WI increased from 14.7Mbps to 21.8Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Ogden, UT increased from 18.3Mbps to 36.5Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Philadelphia, PA from 19.5Mbps to 28.2Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Provo, UT increased from 19Mbps to 37.8Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 37.8Mbps.

Median download speeds in Rockford, IL increased from 19.8Mbps to 30.2Mbps.

Median download speeds in Sacramento, CA increased from 19.5Mbps to 35.5Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 35.5Mbps.

Median download speeds in Salt Lake City, UT increased from 20Mbps to 30.8Mbps. 

Median download speeds in San Jose, CA increased from 28.6Mbps to 37.4Mbps. Sprint had the fastest median download speed at 37.4Mbps.

Median download speeds in Spokane, WA increased from 21.2Mbps to 29.6Mbps.

Median download speeds in Syracuse, NY increased from 28.3Mbps to 38.9Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Tucson, AZ increased from 12.9Mbps to 28.4Mbps. 

Median download speeds in Youngstown, OH increased from 19.1Mbps to 36.2Mbps. 

 

Not all cities have had 1H 2019 data gathered yet.

Speed isn't really the issue. It's coverage. If Sprint had VZW or att coverage they will do just fine. If they did not sure how their currently holding's would hold up with 130+ million Customer's.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Brad The Beast]

4 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

Speed isn't really the issue. It's coverage. If Sprint had VZW or att coverage they will do just fine. If they did not sure how they currently holding's would hold up with 130+ million Customer's.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

Yeah I suppose. What I was getting at was we're seeing a lot of places where average speeds have doubled or even tripled over the past couple months. If they put in the effort into improving coverage like they have been with the speeds then coverage should start improving fairly quickly. 

[Tengen31]

Yeah I suppose. What I was getting at was we're seeing a lot of places where average speeds have doubled or even tripled over the past couple months. If they put in the effort into improving coverage like they have been with the speeds then coverage should start improving fairly quickly. 

If they could crank up the back hall they could do even better. Wonder if all sites have 256 qam on B41/25 now? Hopefully 64 qam up also

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[Brad The Beast]

5 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

If they could crank up the back hall they could do even better. Wonder if all sites have 256 qam on B41/25 now? Hopefully 64 qam up also

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

They obviously need to upgrade their backhaul to use 56K modems. 

[IrwinshereAgain]

Is it true that Sprint would need double the number of towers as Verizon and ATT to get the same coverage due to their lack of low band?

[Tengen31]

Is it true that Sprint would need double the number of towers as Verizon and ATT to get the same coverage due to their lack of low band?

Coverage no. B26 can go just as far as Band 12. Keep in mind TMO B12 is also 5x5. 10x10 would be more useful yes. However TMO and VZW have very dense tower grid. All carriers have to density for Anything not low band to work better.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

2 hours ago, Brad The Beast said:

I'm pretty sure they're making it sound doom and gloom to get the merger approved. We're seeing the opposite in the investor reports in which it would be illegal to lie to investors (AT&T is finding this out the hard way). I mean we've got 5G deploying in the 4 of the first 9 cities next month with the rest to follow in June. We're also already seeing them deploying these new Massive MIMO units elsewhere. If they're able to do that then they must be doing well enough. 

The redacted portions of Sprint’s FCC Filing contain some very hard truths and figures about Sprint’s current predicament. That information isn’t doom/gloom commentary. It’s a sobering fact-based report that Sprint is in big trouble as a company.

See Pages 1-7, especially Page 4: “Sprint’s Public Statements About Select Improvements in Financial Metrics Do Not Alter the Fundamental Challenges It Faces as a Standalone Company”

[S4GRU]

You guys are just falling for the propaganda.  They all want us to think the Sprint's failure is imminent, if not even immediate, if the merger is not approved.

You guys all mocked Sprint when they first were using hyperbole about their network and prospects when they played that card initially.  And now going all ga-ga over the data again as if it was new info and now means even something more or different.

This is all OLD NEWS.  They want it rehashed and all of you to freak out and over talk about it, so general opinion is that Sprint is going to no longer exist with or without Tmo.  But the reality is, as Brad mentioned above, Sprint is in better shape than it was last year, two years ago and five years ago.

And also, I don't get the comment that "Softbank is looking for a bailout by any means necessary."  Softbank is not looking for a bailout.  No request of government giving money to save Sprint financially.  That's a bailout.  Softbank is looking for a BUYER.  It's totally legit to look to sell the company.  Why would this be surprising?  Masa was discussing selling Sprint within weeks of buying it.  That's always been on the table. 

And frankly, I wouldn't mind for someone to take over than Masa.  A tie up with a cable company may be a very good thing for Sprint if the Tmo deal doesn't happen.  But I fully expect a legal challenge if not approved.

Robert

[RedSpark]

16 minutes ago, S4GRU said:

You guys are just falling for the propaganda.  They all want us to think the Sprint's failure is imminent, if not even immediate, if the merger is not approved.

You guys all mocked Sprint when they first were using hyperbole about their network and prospects when they played that card initially.  And now going all ga-ga over the data again as if it was new info and now means even something more or different.

This is all OLD NEWS.  They want it rehashed and all of you to freak out and over talk about it, so genuine opinion is that Sprint is going to no longer exist with or without Tmo.  But the reality is, as Brad mentioned above, Sprint is in better shape than it was last year, two years ago and five years ago.

And also, I don;t get the comment that "Softbank is looking for a bailout by any means necessary."  Softbank is not looking for a bailout.  No request of government giving money to save Sprint financially.  That's a bailout.  Softbank is looking for a BUYER.  It's totally legit to look to sell the company.  Why would this be surprising?  Masa was discussing selling Sprint within weeks of buying it.  That's always been on the table. 

And frankly, I wouldn't mind for someone to take over than Masa.  A tie up with a cable company may be a very good thing for Sprint if the Tmo deal doesn't happen.  But I fully expect a legal challenge if not approved.

Robert

I respectfully disagree with you on this. The FCC Filing isn’t propaganda in my opinion. Rather, it’s the most realistic and honest assessment of Sprint’s situation given the underlying empirical data on which the claims are based. It reveals a number of truths, including the “Monopole or bust” strategy that Sprint attempted.

As far as anything being propaganda, I’ll attach that term to the investor statements, including the ones that Marcelo made over the years.... especially the time when he said this in May 2015: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-s-claure-18-24-months-we-ll-be-no-1-or-2-network-performance

I don’t believe Sprint will go out of business quickly. However, based on the sobering business fundamentals outlined in the FCC Filing, I believe it will continue to go out of business slowly... and then enter Chapter 11 if SoftBank doesn’t pitch in additional funds or if the credit markets tighten.

“Churn-bomb” and “Liquidity wall” as used and supported in the report aren’t overstatements in my opinion. Sprint may be in better shape now than it was in certain respects in prior years, but it’s analogous to repainting a house when the foundation is cracking.

I’m perfectly fine with Masa looking for a buyer. What I’m not fine with is that Sprint has been brought to the brink of a steep downward slope by SoftBank’s mis-management and devalued by its failure to adequately support its asset.

Yeah, I think Sprint/T-Mobile will litigate this if the merger isn’t approved.

[tyroned3222]

You guys are just falling for the propaganda.  They all want us to think the Sprint's failure is imminent, if not even immediate, if the merger is not approved.
You guys all mocked Sprint when they first were using hyperbole about their network and prospects when they played that card initially.  And now going all ga-ga over the data again as if it was new info and now means even something more or different.
This is all OLD NEWS.  They want it rehashed and all of you to freak out and over talk about it, so general opinion is that Sprint is going to no longer exist with or without Tmo.  But the reality is, as Brad mentioned above, Sprint is in better shape than it was last year, two years ago and five years ago.
And also, I don't get the comment that "Softbank is looking for a bailout by any means necessary."  Softbank is not looking for a bailout.  No request of government giving money to save Sprint financially.  That's a bailout.  Softbank is looking for a BUYER.  It's totally legit to look to sell the company.  Why would this be surprising?  Masa was discussing selling Sprint within weeks of buying it.  That's always been on the table. 
And frankly, I wouldn't mind for someone to take over than Masa.  A tie up with a cable company may be a very good thing for Sprint if the Tmo deal doesn't happen.  But I fully expect a legal challenge if not approved.
Robert

No way they spend resources and time fighting this any longer. And on top of that more mid band spectrum has been made available.. so, Verizon and att are going to bid heavy on it..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

Dish, CWA and 22 other entities make case against T-Mobile/Sprint merger

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/dish-cwa-and-22-other-entities-make-case-against-t-mobile-sprint-merger

[bigsnake49]

27 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Dish, CWA and 22 other entities make case against T-Mobile/Sprint merger

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/dish-cwa-and-22-other-entities-make-case-against-t-mobile-sprint-merger

First DOJ can only reject it based on ant-trust grounds or national security. The effect on prices or jobs is not under the purview of the DOJ. FCC can extract concessions as far as too much spectrum but when you take into account all the spectrum holdings of the other 2 the merger passes the spectrum screen. There will be some concessions as far as roaming deals are concerned that Sprint signed. Also the deals that Sprint signed with rural providers to lease spectrum to them in return for cheap roaming would have to be honored.

If the merger is not approved it will be for political reasons and then then Sprint/T-Mobile will sue. DOJ is still licking their wounds from the AT&T court battles so I am not sure they would be eager to take on another one. I think all of this noise is posturing to gain concessions not to reject it outright.

Also discount Dish. They're butt hurt because T-Mobile no longer needs their spectrum. A weakened Sprint would be much more amenable to help Dish deploy their spectrum than a strong combined company.

Edited April 18, 2019 by bigsnake49

[Tengen31]

Still having to wait on VOLTE on my S9+ is another reason I want the merger. 6 months in and I still can't use it.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[dkyeager]

"It aint't over until the fat lady sings"  Or the orange haired man.

I do put some credit to rumors in Washington mentioned in WSJ.  Odds are now less than 50-50 IMO, but far from dead.

[Brad The Beast]

20 hours ago, RedSpark said:

I respectfully disagree with you on this. The FCC Filing isn’t propaganda in my opinion. Rather, it’s the most realistic and honest assessment of Sprint’s situation given the underlying empirical data on which the claims are based. It reveals a number of truths, including the “Monopole or bust” strategy that Sprint attempted.

As far as anything being propaganda, I’ll attach that term to the investor statements, including the ones that Marcelo made over the years.... especially the time when he said this in May 2015: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-s-claure-18-24-months-we-ll-be-no-1-or-2-network-performance

I don’t believe Sprint will go out of business quickly. However, based on the sobering business fundamentals outlined in the FCC Filing, I believe it will continue to go out of business slowly... and then enter Chapter 11 if SoftBank doesn’t pitch in additional funds or if the credit markets tighten.

“Churn-bomb” and “Liquidity wall” as used and supported in the report aren’t overstatements in my opinion. Sprint may be in better shape now than it was in certain respects in prior years, but it’s analogous to repainting a house when the foundation is cracking.

I’m perfectly fine with Masa looking for a buyer. What I’m not fine with is that Sprint has been brought to the brink of a steep downward slope by SoftBank’s mis-management and devalued by its failure to adequately support its asset.

Yeah, I think Sprint/T-Mobile will litigate this if the merger isn’t approved.

I think the investor reports would be more accurate since they can't lie to investors unless they want to end up like AT&T with a lawsuit. 

[danlodish345]

You guys are just falling for the propaganda.  They all want us to think the Sprint's failure is imminent, if not even immediate, if the merger is not approved.
You guys all mocked Sprint when they first were using hyperbole about their network and prospects when they played that card initially.  And now going all ga-ga over the data again as if it was new info and now means even something more or different.
This is all OLD NEWS.  They want it rehashed and all of you to freak out and over talk about it, so general opinion is that Sprint is going to no longer exist with or without Tmo.  But the reality is, as Brad mentioned above, Sprint is in better shape than it was last year, two years ago and five years ago.
And also, I don't get the comment that "Softbank is looking for a bailout by any means necessary."  Softbank is not looking for a bailout.  No request of government giving money to save Sprint financially.  That's a bailout.  Softbank is looking for a BUYER.  It's totally legit to look to sell the company.  Why would this be surprising?  Masa was discussing selling Sprint within weeks of buying it.  That's always been on the table. 
And frankly, I wouldn't mind for someone to take over than Masa.  A tie up with a cable company may be a very good thing for Sprint if the Tmo deal doesn't happen.  But I fully expect a legal challenge if not approved.
Robert

I agree with you [emoji817] ... A merger would be a good thing. I would even be satisfied with a tie up with a cable company. And those rumors of Sprint going away aren't true..I m glad they where not true.. I'm glad Sprint is still around honestly.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

I agree with you [emoji817] ... A merger would be a good thing. I would even be satisfied with a tie up with a cable company. And those rumors of Sprint going away aren't true..I m glad they where not true.. I'm glad Sprint is still around honestly.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

If the merger does fail, a name change and rebranding might be a good idea since the name Sprint makes people's head shake. My vote is on dish if it fails. Robert is right tho even John Ledger said it's not about wipeing out Sprint cause Sprint is part of New TMobile. The two become one but Sprint is still their with the name TMobile.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[danlodish345]

If the merger does fail, a name change and rebranding might be a good idea since the name Sprint makes people's head shake. My vote is on dish if it fails. Robert is right tho even John Ledger said it's not about wipeing out Sprint cause Sprint is part of New TMobile. The two become one but Sprint is still their with the name TMobile.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

A merger is still a good thing. But I'm going to wait and see what happens before I comment any further.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

12 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

If the merger does fail, a name change and rebranding might be a good idea since the name Sprint makes people's head shake. My vote is on dish if it fails. Robert is right tho even John Ledger said it's not about wipeing out Sprint cause Sprint is part of New TMobile. The two become one but Sprint is still their with the name TMobile.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

Dish does not have any money.They spent it all on spectrum.

[Tengen31]

Dish does not have any money.They spent it all on spectrum.

Then I hope whoever gets Sprint buys Dishes spectrum hell even uscc or New TMO

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

16 hours ago, Brad The Beast said:

I think the investor reports would be more accurate since they can't lie to investors unless they want to end up like AT&T with a lawsuit. 

You're referring to this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/04/lawsuit-atts-directv-now-is-a-flop-and-att-lied-to-investors-about-it/

That's not beyond the realm of possibility for Sprint... especially given how any lawsuit would occur subsequent to the alleged "lying".

Sprint's FCC Filing is supported by empirical and highly confidential data on its adds/losses, churn, etc. throughout the report. I believe it shows a serious situation. Even more so, Sprint says in the Filing that its investor statements noting certain accomplishments shouldn't detract from the seriousness of its current predicament.

See Pages 36-42 of the FCC Filing, which includes this:

"The recent improvements in some financial metrics simply cannot, and do not, overcome these fundamental challenges:"

On balance, I'm more willing to believe the information in the FCC Filing which specifically references and dismisses the investor statements than in the investor statements alone. If the redacted "highly confidential" information in the Filing was made available to investors, I believe Sprint stock would be substantially impacted... as that information reflects the ground truth of what's happening with Sprint.

Edited April 19, 2019 by RedSpark
Added information

[red_dog007]

If you read the internet, for the last 7 years I have been a Sprint customer, every quarter I have been told that Sprint was going to go under and file for bankruptcy. 

Their position isn't pretty, but it isn't like Sprint is in some unique position.  People like to be like, debt, debt, debt, but having more debt than revenue is pretty common.  Look at Charter.  $40billion in revenue but they have $70billion in long term debts.  A company like AMD couldn't make any money for like a decade before their recent turn around.  They sold, leveraged and won some key lawsuits that helped them stay afloat.  Now they are kicking ass and taking names.

This idea that Sprint needs to be at the same coverage level as AT&T or VZW to survive I think is a fallacy as well.  They have great roaming agreements.  This is how the dozens of regional carriers survive.