Jump to content

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Sprint is so far behind in Los Angeles, it's not even funny. I doubt they have more than 10% market share and than probably all prepaid. And yes, everybody. is using tall buildings' rooftops nowadays.

Bingo.  You are making my point for me.  They have no market share, but a network that is now better than it would reflect.  Their 5G launch will also put them way ahead of geographic coverage for 5G compared to their competitors too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, newyork4me said:

Bingo.  You are making my point for me.  They have no market share, but a network that is now better than it would reflect.  Their 5G launch will also put them way ahead of geographic coverage for 5G compared to their competitors too.

You're not hearing me. Their network sucks and it will take macro sites to make it better. The kind that T-mobile has in abundance in the LA basin. 

The macro site that was servicing my location was taken down for some reason or another. It was replaced by couple of small cells which do an adequate job outside on the street but cannot penetrate inside to save a life. In removing the tribune macro site they removed both band 26 and band 25 antennas. The band 41 signal cannot reach indoors at my place. It needed both band 25 and 26. So this band 41 utopia of your does not work from and I believe it won't work for a lot of other suburbanites. Let me repeat again. Band 41 small cells are not a replacement for triband macro sites, they are supplemental as in when there is a coverage gap that cannot be bridged by a macro site because there is no tall building or a standalone antenna. The other circumstance is when a macro site is overloaded. You need both kind of sites to have an adequate network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had the same debate with various network engineers from various carriers about Sprint in my area.  T-Mobile ranks better yet has about the same number of macro sites.  Much fewer if you count b41 only macro sites (former Clear).  They also have almost no small cells.  Sprint has far more small cells than AT&T, yet maybe half the number of Verizon.  The primary conclusion is lack of proper backhaul.  CapEX pays for some fancy site equipment, but backhaul comes out of the operating budget. 

Lack of low band capacity is another especially for interior use, which would be solved by more tribanding of former Clear sites, yet that is moving quite slowly. 

If there was more consistency in site deployments, I figure the network would be easier to manage / optimize.  There is a tremendous mix of network technologies in play in the traditional metro area: B25 - a few 5x5, then mostly 10x10, 5x5+10x10, 15x15 then various mixtures of 256 QAM and 4x4 MIMO, and 4 or more sectors at some sites,  B26 - 5x5, 3x3, some with 4 port RRUs plus a few multiple sector sites, B41 - low 1 carrier and 2 carrier small cells , B41 2 CA 2x2 MIMO Mini Macro sites (mostly former Clear), 8T8R sites with 3 CA and up to 4x4 MIMO, a few of these with 5 carriers, a few Massive MIMO sites.  Blessed to have all these, but plenty of places for problems to hide.  Likely boils down to limited resources.

When you go to rural sites, the opposite is often true: Sprint sites are very consistent while the other carriers have plenty of ground mounted radios and museum sites. VoLTE at least did force more LTE consistency for the other carriers.

I figure this is enough for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/291245-sprint-is-practically-begging-regulators-to-approve-t-mobile-merger

Quote

If the deal doesn’t go through, Sprint would get a modest breakup fee from T-Mobile

I didn't think there was a breakup fee if the deal falls through; besides the roaming agreements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JThorson said:

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/291245-sprint-is-practically-begging-regulators-to-approve-t-mobile-merger

I didn't think there was a breakup fee if the deal falls through; besides the roaming agreements?

It is very particular.  My guess is T-Mobile would have to say no to conditions of approval put forth by DOJ and FCC and Sprint would need to meet credit, and possible financial and customer requirements.  It is for $600 Million.

 

Edited by dkyeager
Edited for exact amount and conditions link
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

Both of you need to stop going to the two extremes. 

I assumed it was a given that when we talked about "Urban", we also meant suburban America. For the purpose of this discussion, suburbs and downtown areas are all "urbanized" areas while a site on I-10 near Sonora, TX is rural.

Sorry for the confusion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

It was replaced by couple of small cells which do an adequate job outside on the street but cannot penetrate inside to save a life. 

This has been my experience as well. Small Cells are not a good way of filling coverage holes (particularly for B41 and indoor coverage). Small Cells are only useful for balancing congestion.

Take T-Mobile as an example. They added Macro sites to fill weak coverage areas where you would lose LTE. Afterwards, they looked at all their congested sectors and added small cells as a form of relief. They mostly focused on areas with high concentrations of people (apartments, shopping centers, schools, etc.) and speeds have improved.

They still have a long way to go, but their strategy is, hands down, the best way of tackling both coverage and congestion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, greenbastard said:

I assumed it was a given that when we talked about "Urban", we also meant suburban America. For the purpose of this discussion, suburbs and downtown areas are all "urbanized" areas while a site on I-10 near Sonora, TX is rural.

Sorry for the confusion.

NYC and Chicago by the lake have nothing to do with Houston with its huge suburbs that stretch almost to San Antonio. And Katy has nothing to do with the coverage on Farm-To-Market rural roads in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dkyeager said:

How much would they really lose?  Say you sell Boost Mobile and MetroPCS, they are still going to use your network.  They are still going to be paying New-TMobile. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

How much would they really lose?  Say you sell Boost Mobile and MetroPCS, they are still going to use your network.  They are still going to be paying New-TMobile. 😕

I suggest they look at what is the most profitable/biggest prepaid brand and then sell the other 2. I am guessing Metro is the healthiest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

How much would they really lose?  Say you sell Boost Mobile and MetroPCS, they are still going to use your network.  They are still going to be paying New-TMobile. 😕

The first question is how reliable is the source?   Most of these rumors will have some basis in truth.  Does it include spectrum sales? 

At this stage I am inclined to believe most of the time is being spent on network and customer facing issues.  How many sites an where must the be retained?  Which counties will require spectrum sales?  How are CDMA only customers and areas handled, including building interiors? How are phone upgrades handled?  What about billing plans and cutovers? etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bigsnake49 said:

I suggest they look at what is the most profitable/biggest prepaid brand and then sell the other 2. I am guessing Metro is the healthiest.

It could just be limited to locked in rates and service levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Yeah this is rank speculation., particularly by Bloomberg who has totally lost credibility lately.

Fiercewireless boost the credibility a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

Fiercewireless boost the credibility a lot.

Not when they are quoting Bloomberg. Now we know there will be some concessions and people are just throwing crap against the wall and hoping it will stick. I am sure everybody is keeping the talks very close to the vest. Instead of selling, a brand New T-Mobile should be forced to keep all three brands to ensure competition is alive and well. 40% of prepaid is 40% of prepaid. Prepaid is not as valued as postpaid.

Edited by bigsnake49
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

NYC and Chicago by the lake have nothing to do with Houston with its huge suburbs that stretch almost to San Antonio. And Katy has nothing to do with the coverage on Farm-To-Market rural roads in Texas.

Then I don't get what you're trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, greenbastard said:

Then I don't get what you're trying to say.

That there's urban, suburban, exurban and rural and then there's vast stretches of nothingness. Each of them require different approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we appear to have reached the horse trading stage. 2 things come to mind, first that T&S are basically going to give up whatever the government wants to make this merger happen. Secondly if we're at this stage approval is probably happening, unless the FCC requests something onerous.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so.
Someone claims they will give up all prepaid not sure I believe that as that makes no since

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone claims they will give up all prepaid not sure I believe that as that makes no since

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk



They will probably get rid of Boost and Virgin Mobile.
  • 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 assume that any agreement is not perpetual and has an end date. - Trip
    • 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.
  • Recently Browsing

×
×
  • Create New...