Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

[Tengen31]

Yeah their 25x25 is very tiny. It's only four areas. The majority is 20x20, then 15x15 and a couple of patches of 10x10.

Remind me where you live again? Dakotas I remember that or near there

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[Brad The Beast]

4 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

Remind me where you live again? Dakotas I remember that or near there

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

North Dakota.

[Tengen31]

North Dakota.

I was only asking to look up their holding's

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[Brad The Beast]

1 minute ago, Tengen31 said:

I was only asking to look up their holding's

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

T-Mobile is hot garbage here. That T-Mobile Congestion™ is very prominent. 

[Tengen31]

T-Mobile is hot garbage here. That T-Mobile Congestion[emoji769] is very prominent. 

Any idea what their B71 BW is there? Everything looks like 5x5, they don't show H+ deployed tho only 2G. 2G shutdown would allow B2 to go 10x10. Sprint would add 15x15 for B2/25 and then 5x5 B25

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[Brad The Beast]

1 minute ago, Tengen31 said:

Any idea what their B71 BW is there? Everything looks like 5x5, they don't show H+ deployed tho only 2G. 2G shutdown would allow B2 to go 10x10. Sprint would add 15x15 for B2/25 and then 5x5 B25

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

It's 20x20 to my understanding. 

[Tengen31]

It's 20x20 to my understanding. 

I meant deployed. Some will be saved for 5G so it's likely 10x10 or so.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[Brad The Beast]

Oh, what they actually have deployed I don't know. I only know what they have licenses for.

[ingenium]

Any idea what their B71 BW is there? Everything looks like 5x5, they don't show H+ deployed tho only 2G. 2G shutdown would allow B2 to go 10x10. Sprint would add 15x15 for B2/25 and then 5x5 B25

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure T-Mobile isn't sacrificing any spectrum for 2G. My understanding is that they run GSM in the internal LTE guard bands. So it's "free" from a spectrum perspective

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

I'm pretty sure T-Mobile isn't sacrificing any spectrum for 2G. My understanding is that they run GSM in the internal LTE guard bands. So it's "free" from a spectrum perspective

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[dkyeager]

18 hours ago, newyork4me said:

Sprint also said that without the merger they will continue to invest in network CapEx at the same ~$5 billion/year rate they are on right now...which took them from 0 to 30,000 small cells and 0 to 1,500 MIMO deployment and 60-80% deployment of 2.5GHZ equipment.

Another year of that, and Sprint will look like a different carrier.  Oh, and Sprint management also said that if the merger does not go through, they will refocus their network efforts on major metro areas--which is exactly what I said their strategy should be and would be successful.  This management gets it.

Past behavior is the best predictor of Sprint future CAPex - they will get to about 90% of their goal and then take a breather for a few years IMO.

The real perfomance issue is backhaul, which comes out of operating funds.

Not sure management really does get it.  Sprint deployments start rural then move into metro areas.  T-Mobile does the opposite because it is more noticed, thus helping to attract more customers, hence better cash flow. To further reinforce this point, the former Clear site Tribanding project had 8T8Rs in the permits.  Many of these appear to have been downgraded last quarter to the existing Mini Macros (I need more data to be certain), which affects the performance of surrounding 8T8R sites in the metro areas.  At least in my market they have been going quite slow on this Tribanding project compared to past upgrade projects.  Historically they would already be done by now compared to the last round of upgrades for these sites.

[ingenium]

.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that? They have GSM on 1900 and LTE on 1900. GSM runs in the internal LTE guard bands, flanking either side of the LTE carrier. LTE carriers are actually slightly smaller than 5x5, 10x10, etc, and have unused spectrum on either side for a variety of reasons. A GSM carrier is 0.2 MHz and can fit in here just fine. It doesn't use extra spectrum.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that? They have GSM on 1900 and LTE on 1900. GSM runs in the internal LTE guard bands, flanking either side of the LTE carrier. LTE carriers are actually slightly smaller than 5x5, 10x10, etc, and have unused spectrum on either side for a variety of reasons. A GSM carrier is 0.2 MHz and can fit in here just fine. It doesn't use extra spectrum.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

You say you were sure TMO didn't have 2G there.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[ingenium]

You say you were sure TMO didn't have 2G there.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

No I said they weren't sacrificing LTE spectrum for GSM.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

No I said they weren't sacrificing LTE spectrum for GSM.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

You didn't say LTE.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

I'm pretty sure T-Mobile isn't sacrificing any spectrum for 2G. My understanding is that they run GSM in the internal LTE guard bands. So it's "free" from a spectrum perspective  Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I'm sure Tmobile isn't sacrificeing any spectrum for 2G. Your quoteSent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cyclone]

last word in the first row (from my desktop view) of the quote you made....LTE 😅

[ingenium]

I'm sure Tmobile isn't sacrificeing any spectrum for 2G. Your quoteSent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yes...." sacrificing", meaning to give up spectrum to GSM from something else. They aren't taking away spectrum from anything (LTE, HSPA, WCDMA) for GSM. It costs them 0 in terms of spectrum usage/allocation.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

Yes...." sacrificing", meaning to give up spectrum to GSM from something else. They aren't taking away spectrum from anything (LTE, HSPA, WCDMA) for GSM. It costs them 0 in terms of spectrum usage/allocation.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I get that now. I'm guessing the last 5x5 out of 20x20 in my area is pretty much HSPA+ then?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[ingenium]

I get that now. I'm guessing the last 5x5 out of 20x20 in my area is pretty much HSPA+ then?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Yeah probably. I don't think T-Mobile has shut down WCDMA/HSPA anywhere yet. There are still a decent number of non-VoLTE capable devices on their network I assume, and I don't think they've announced any plans to shut it down yet.

Since VoLTE can fall back to WCDMA, I'm guessing it'll be kept around for a while.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Tengen31]

Yeah probably. I don't think T-Mobile has shut down WCDMA/HSPA anywhere yet. There are still a decent number of non-VoLTE capable devices on their network I assume, and I don't think they've announced any plans to shut it down yet.

Since VoLTE can fall back to WCDMA, I'm guessing it'll be kept around for a while.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Yeah. With Sprint Merger they will be able to do 20x20 here then. 2G i think they said next year shutdown. They have shutdown 3G in some areas mostly where they couldn't do LTE if they didn't.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[ingenium]

Yeah. With Sprint Merger they will be able to do 20x20 here then. 2G i think they said next year shutdown. They have shutdown 3G in some areas mostly where they couldn't do LTE if they didn't.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Yeah I'm not sure what GSM costs them in terms of equipment. On Sprint, since the equipment is dual mode, they don't need new radios or anything, but it lowers the number of LTE carriers and MIMO streams possible per antenna port. I don't know if similar compromises have to be made with T-Mobile equipment, or if they actually have separate GSM radios and antennas.

If they plan to eventually shut down GSM, then there must be some compromise/cost to running it. Or perhaps the next gen equipment they plan to deploy can't do it?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

11 minutes ago, ingenium said:

If they plan to eventually shut down GSM, then there must be some compromise/cost to running it. Or perhaps the next gen equipment they plan to deploy can't do it?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

The latter. 

[Mr.Nuke]

Sorry for being late to this and some of this is repeating New York.

On 5/8/2019 at 12:19 PM, tyroned3222 said:

Even if cash flow positive.. how is sprint going to cover debt payments that are coming due..

They have $7 billion in cash and just under $10 billion in liquid assets.

On 5/8/2019 at 12:25 PM, RedSpark said:

Look at Page 20 of the Investor Update which shows its liquidity vs current maturities: https://s21.q4cdn.com/487940486/files/doc_financials/quarterly/2018/Q4/Fiscal-4Q18-Sprint-Quarterly-Investor-Update-FINAL.pdf

Then take a look at its debt schedule here: https://investors.sprint.com/financials/default.aspx

Does that change your opinion?

I guess I read that differently than you do. From the investor update presentation they've basically got enough liquidity to pay off their debt for the next two years if they do nothing at all. What will happen is what has happened for years. You'll likely see Sprint offer new notes at some point this year that will replace the debt or expand it further.

On 5/8/2019 at 12:30 PM, tyroned3222 said:

He’s talking about a massive restructuring of their debt which is what it would take to make this happen as sprint is 40 billion in debt.. sprint spends 2.6 billon per year servicing their debt( imagine if they could spend that on the network). Sprint churn is raising, gross add shares are falling too

He isn't talking about a "massive restructuring of their debt" at all. He is talking about what Sprint has done in the past and will continue to do going forward. Sprint has roughly $4.3 billion in debt due this fiscal year. If they issue $4.3 billion in new debt ceteris paribus their debt and liquidity positions haven't changed.

On 5/8/2019 at 1:01 PM, tyroned3222 said:

On 40 billion in debt ?

They aren't refinancing $40 billion in debt. As maturing debt is retired they are issuing new debt. The next 3 years that is $4 to $5 billion a year at a time.

On 5/8/2019 at 12:49 PM, RedSpark said:

And how long can Sprint keep that up for without sufficient free cash flow?

Presumably indefinitely as long as someone is willing to lend to them (which there is a finite point somewhere there), but especially in the current economic conditions Sprint didn't have any trouble getting money last year and actually up-sized an offering due to favorable interest. The Free Cash Flow thing is a little weird. As a customer, I'd prefer Sprint invests in their network, something they did up about 50% year-over-year. That spending is going to drive Free Cash Flow down. If they had spent about $1 billion less in Capex they would've been free cash flow positive, which again is meaningless to me as a customer. It also isn't a really compelling failing firm argument, which is part of the reason they're having trouble convincing the DOJ of their arguement here. T-Mobile hasn't been FCF positive* since 2015.

 

*using Cash from operations less capital expenditures

[S4GRU]

Sprint's situation is not dire.  They still have over 50 million postpaid customers.  There is a relatively high churn rate, but people are not fleeing for the exits.  Most of that were temporary customers they tried to entice away with promos. 

In virtually every metric, Sprint is in better shape now.  Financially and network performance.  And frankly, their current and future capex plans are more realistic and better serving.  They are much more in line with what Tmo did to get itself out of its rut back in 2012-2014.  Focus on urban markets first, then suburban and secondary markets. 

And if you play your cards right and growth starts to occur after a few years of doing that, then they can make an exurban/rural move with major highway expansions.  But Sprint cannot put the cart before the horse again this time.  This is a much smarter plan.

We all want Sprint to be the hard charging Number Four carrier that quickly surpasses the others to become #1 or #2.  But also, there are ways to be a successful company and stay #4 forever.  If Sprint cannot merge, it is still completely viable to run on its own.  But it will be a long process to gain more customers or move up the rung.  And I think most of us believe the network experience will be the best way to do that.  And Sprint needs to start with the highest concentrations of customers first, to get the most bang for its buck.

But Sprint is highlighting the darkness in their current status, because it is trying to get a merger approved.  And that's going to give a lot of fodder to the unbelievers.  Shun the unbelievers! 

Robert