Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

[bigsnake49]

35 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

How would any anti-trust case be successful?  Going from 4 to 3 is still no monopoly. It is still far away from being one.  And the chances of any of the 3 carriers merging is nill.  Is there a point in anti-trust lawsuits that says you can only have no less than 4 direct competitors?  I don't think the grounds of a monopoly would be very sound when each carrier will essentially have 33% of all subscrubers. 

In light of competition, there isn't any really even now.  I don't call the carriers being the same price to $20 difference depending on your plan (non-promo) competition.  The only way I'd see competition increasing is if the merger happens, New-TMobile gets to a 1:1 parity in coverage, has way more 5G coverage and speeds 2x or 3x faster than VZW/ATT.  Then on top of this, they seriously drop prices.  This is the only way that TMobile will be able to hugely and negatively impact VZW/ATT subscription levels. No one cares to switch if they are only going to save 20 bucks. 

 

Is the big and serious concern really on the MVNO front?  Wont the combined company have like >80% of all MVNO subscribers? This is why there are talks to spin off Boost? Instead of just spinning off Boost, that should be an independent subsidiary (where they own at least a majority) that gets all would be decommissioned sites.  Boost gets say at least 10x10 of PCS, maybe some SMR and BRS/EBS.  Once New-TMobile is done integrating the two networks they sell it. If no one buys it, they spin off Boost debt free with $5billion in cash.  Whether it is sold or just spunoff they have a 7yr dirt cheap roaming agreement. 

Loads of different ways to handle concessions.  If it happens, it'll be very interesting to read the bullet points of all the concessions. 

No spectrum divestments. Force Dish to create a network. Speed up CBRS NPRM. The cable cos would love to get their hands on CBRS and deploy CBRS based networks while roaming on let's say Verizon for coverage outside their service area.

[red_dog007]

Just now, bigsnake49 said:

No spectrum divestments. Force Dish to create a network. Speed up CBRS NPRM. The cable cos would love to get their hands on CBRS and deploy CBRS based networks while roaming on let's say Verizon for coverage outside their service area.

This is well outside the scope of the merger though.  Because Sprint/TMobile want to merge, you can't force Dish or the cable companies to become part of the deal or force some action as a result of the merger.  

[dro1984]

They don't seem to care Red Dog.... they are putting all sorts of BS on Sprint and T Mobile.   Making them form another carrier that can compete with all of them.   I call that "out of the box"....   It's crazy.     What happened to the idea that "there is no magic number (National players in wireless)?

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by dro1984

[bigsnake49]

10 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

This is well outside the scope of the merger though.  Because Sprint/TMobile want to merge, you can't force Dish or the cable companies to become part of the deal or force some action as a result of the merger.  

It is if you want to create a 4th player. The two merging companies should not be forced to create one for you. If you give Boost 10x10 slice how the hell are they going to deploy it? They will have to pay a competitor to deploy it for them. So what do you have? An MVNO that has a high overhead that will not be able to compete. You will have the illusion of a 4th player. You can declare victory and go home but it will be a hollow victory. What you will also have is massive government interference in how companies do business. There are absolutely no antitrust concerns in this merger. If I am Sprint/T-mobile I would welcome my day in court. I would tell the DOJ to get the attys general in line or they can forget about spinning off Boost or any other concessions. 

[DurhamHusker]

This is the way I see it. Granted, I'm no expert.

1) Democrats at the federal and state levels are worried about low income customers getting priced out of the market. Maybe a guarantee of low priced plans with minimal data allotments would help.

2) Democrats and Republicans alike at the federal and state levels along with members of the DOJ are likely getting heavily lobbied by Verizon and AT&T. Frankly, I'd be scared shitless if I were them.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

7 minutes ago, DurhamHusker said:

This is the way I see it. Granted, I'm no expert.

1) Democrats at the federal and state levels are worried about low income customers getting priced out of the market. Maybe a guarantee of low priced plans with minimal data allotments would help.

2) Democrats and Republicans alike at the federal and state levels along with members of the DOJ are likely getting heavily lobbied by Verizon and AT&T. Frankly, I'd be scared shitless if I were them.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

I totally agree but you can achieve #1 by agreeing not to raise prices on existing plans for 3 years.

Yes, they are heavily lobbied by AT&T and Verizon and that's why I don't want them to spinoff Boost or divest spectrum. We need a strong merged company to compete with AT&T and Verizon.

[RedSpark]

One thing that seems lost (either deliberately or ignorantly) so far on these government regulators and in the mainstream channels in support of this merger is that SoftBank is a multi-billion global corporation of which Sprint is merely a piece. I have to believe this is intentional in some respect as to the market narrative.

SoftBank’s unwillingness (or inability as has been claimed in the past based on Japanese bank covenants) to invest enough in Sprint to make it an effective competitor should not be made up for by permitting the market to consolidate from four major players to three, to the detriment of customers in my opinion.

My response to SoftBank would be: you had enough money for ARM (http://fortune.com/2016/07/18/softbank-arm-iot/), Uber (https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/10/18563267/softbank-vision-fund-explainer-uber-wework-slack-ipo), Boston Dynamics (https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/softbank-pumps-37m-robot-dog-company-boston-dynamics-103522300.html) among other things. A merger doesn’t need to happen, nor should it.

SoftBank wants to have its cake and eat it too. If it was up to me, I’d tell them to go pound sand, open their wallet and invest to enable Sprint to compete.... or to divest itself of Sprint and then sell it to someone who wants to.

[tyroned3222]

I agree!!! SoftBank has been looking for a buyer/merger since 2017 and no one wanted to buy them expect tmo last min...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lilotimz]

I agree!!! SoftBank has been looking for a buyer/merger since 2017 and no one wanted to buy them expect tmo last min...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy it at the price they wanted.

The whole calculus has changed since 2018 when Softbank has shown its hand on how desperate they want to offload Sprint.

There's many sharks swimming around the bleeding body that is Sprint ready to snap at the right moment which would be post merger failure and devaluation of the Sprint stock pricing and credit rating.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

4 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

I agree!!! SoftBank has been looking for a buyer/merger since 2017 and no one wanted to buy them expect tmo last min...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And now at less favorable terms than before I believe.

[RedSpark]

1 hour ago, tyroned3222 said:

I agree!!! SoftBank has been looking for a buyer/merger since 2017 and no one wanted to buy them expect tmo last min...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of Sprint’s arguments for a merger is that it lacks sufficient scale to complete without it. Of course, this means that you have to deliberately set aside (in my opinion) the fact that SoftBank, a global mega-corporation owns nearly 85% of it.

Sprint is SoftBank USA, but it seems determined to hide that fact.

[tyroned3222]

One of Sprint’s arguments for a merger is that it lacks sufficient scale to complete without it. Of course, this means that you have to deliberately set aside (in my opinion) the fact that SoftBank, a global mega-corporation owns nearly 85% of it.
Sprint is SoftBank USA, but it seems determined to hide that fact.

Well, it looks like soon they won’t be able to hide it.. 17 more states looking to jump on board of this lawsuit.. that’s a total of 27 territory against the deal.. if a judge grants the junction could delay deal indefinitely.. tmo and sprint would seriously meet to consider if they want to move forward on this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

4 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

Well, it looks like soon they won’t be able to hide it.. 17 more states looking to jump on board of this lawsuit.. that’s a total of 27 territory against the deal.. if a judge grants the junction could delay deal indefinitely.. tmo and sprint would seriously meet to consider if they want to move forward on this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

17 more? Where did you read that?

[tyroned3222]

17 more? Where did you read that?

Was talked about during his segment

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[red_dog007]

2 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

It is if you want to create a 4th player. The two merging companies should not be forced to create one for you. If you give Boost 10x10 slice how the hell are they going to deploy it? They will have to pay a competitor to deploy it for them. So what do you have? An MVNO that has a high overhead that will not be able to compete. You will have the illusion of a 4th player. You can declare victory and go home but it will be a hollow victory. What you will also have is massive government interference in how companies do business. There are absolutely no antitrust concerns in this merger. If I am Sprint/T-mobile I would welcome my day in court. I would tell the DOJ to get the attys general in line or they can forget about spinning off Boost or any other concessions. 

You don't want to force TMobile/Sprint to spin off assets to create a new company but you want to force Dish or Comcast/Charter to enter the markets as a 4th player (their own network) as part of the merger?  Right.

Boost, PCS and a network.  As you read in my post ( I hope ), that any would be decommissioned site goes to Boost ownership.  As we know, there is plans to decommission tens of thousands of cell sites and rack spaces.  These leases and equipment ownerships would be transferred to Boost. 

[bigsnake49]

2 hours ago, red_dog007 said:

You don't want to force TMobile/Sprint to spin off assets to create a new company but you want to force Dish or Comcast/Charter to enter the markets as a 4th player (their own network) as part of the merger?  Right.

Boost, PCS and a network.  As you read in my post ( I hope ), that any would be decommissioned site goes to Boost ownership.  As we know, there is plans to decommission tens of thousands of cell sites and rack spaces.  These leases and equipment ownerships would be transferred to Boost. 

So now you are basically forcing Boost to fail. It takes a lot of money to run a network. If you are going to spin off Boost then you also have to assign it part of the debt for buying all those network elements minus depreciation. 

Dish needs to shyte or get off the pot. It is nearing the deadline where it loses its AWS-4 spectrum and its 700Mhz spectrum. Cable cos are going to be deploying CBRS with or without government intervention. I just want the government to speed up the NPRN process. None of this goes over and beyond regular government oversight.

I am against any concessions by T-Mobile/Sprint. The new company will have to make major investments to integrate the two networks and deploy 5G. The last thing it needs is to have the government weaken it so they can declare a victory. All the while the Big 2 have garnered 75% of the wireless revenue and EBITDA.

As I said before, I am for the merging companies to promise that:

1. They will match Verizon's coverage after 3-5 years

2. Any existing MVNO agreements will be honored with no change in wholesale prices for 3 years

3. The company promises to be friendly to new MVNOs

4. Existing customers plans should be honored for 3 years

5. Any existing roaming agreements ala Shentel and CSpire should be honored for the next 3-5 years

6. Any Rural Wireless Alliance agreements should be honored for the next 3-5 years

7. The new company should offer to host third party spectrum on favorable commercial terms (I am looking at you Dish and Comcast). They can immediately host Dish and  Comcast's 600Mhz and Dish's AWS-3 spectrum.

Edited June 12, 2019 by bigsnake49

[red_dog007]

2 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

So now you are basically forcing Boost to fail. It takes a lot of money to run a network. If you are going to spin off Boost then you also have to assign it part of the debt for buying all those network elements minus depreciation. 

Dish needs to shyte or get off the pot. It is nearing the deadline where it loses its AWS-4 spectrum and its 700Mhz spectrum. Cable cos are going to be deploying CBRS with or without government intervention. I just want the government to speed up the NPRN process. None of this goes over and beyond regular government oversight.

I am against any concessions by T-Mobile/Sprint. The new company will have to make major investments to integrate the two networks and deploy 5G. The last thing it needs is to have the government weaken it so they can declare a victory. All the while the Big 2 have garnered 75% of the wireless revenue and EBITDA.

 

The idea is someone wants a 4th carrier to be happy. Selling Boost as an MVNO doesn't make a 4th carrier. You need a network. Boost might fail, might get bought out. Wouldn't matter too much because a huge network is about to be decommissioned anyways.

[tyroned3222]

The idea is someone wants a 4th carrier to be happy. Selling Boost as an MVNO doesn't make a 4th carrier. You need a network. Boost might fail, might get bought out. Wouldn't matter too much because a huge network is about to be decommissioned anyways.

The only one that makes sense in terms of a spectrum portfolio is dish.. give them 40-60mhz of band 41, some of Sprint’s stores that will close anyway and the towers that will be decommissioned and there you have a 4th carrier .. and give dish a very strict rollout time frame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chamb]

44 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

The only one that makes sense in terms of a spectrum portfolio is dish.. give them 40-60mhz of band 41, some of Sprint’s stores that will close anyway and the towers that will be decommissioned and there you have a 4th carrier .. and give dish a very strict rollout time frame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No No.  Do not give DISH anything.  Just the opposite, play the take away game with them since they have failed to meet the build-out requirements for their spectrum.

[tyroned3222]

No No.  Do not give DISH anything.  Just the opposite, play the take away game with them since they have failed to meet the build-out requirements for their spectrum.

If it’s not dish .. sprin/tmo will have to give up more spectrum to help a 4th carrier get going


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

37 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

The only one that makes sense in terms of a spectrum portfolio is dish.. give them 40-60mhz of band 41, some of Sprint’s stores that will close anyway and the towers that will be decommissioned and there you have a 4th carrier .. and give dish a very strict rollout time frame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A nationwide rollout with what money?

Dish has zero wireless customers today to either fund or justify a nationwide rollout. And they have absolutely no relation to the merger. How does the fact that T-Mobile and Sprint want to merge obligate Dish to do anything at all?

[tyroned3222]

A nationwide rollout with what money?

Dish has zero wireless customers today to either fund or justify a nationwide rollout. And they have absolutely no relation to the merger. How does the fact that T-Mobile and Sprint want to merge obligate Dish to do anything at all?

Dish is on the report as one of the company interested in the assets .. if the concession is to create a 4th carrier it would be dish .. anyone else will need more spectrum to get started.. the report say boost and possible another part of the prepaid business... maybe dish could get metro customers possibly.. and retain some of the sprint stores/towers to get going

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dro1984]

5 minutes ago, RAvirani said:

A nationwide rollout with what money?

Dish has zero wireless customers today to either fund or justify a nationwide rollout. And they have absolutely no relation to the merger. How does the fact that T-Mobile and Sprint want to merge obligate Dish to do anything at all?

I agree with all of you.   Make Dish give up their wasted and unused spectrum they have been hording.   Do not make Sprint T Mobile give up anything.    This whole plan by the government, specifically the DOJ is one F..*.'ed Upped mess!   What a stupidly bad plan!!!   

[lilotimz]

No No.  Do not give DISH anything.  Just the opposite, play the take away game with them since they have failed to meet the build-out requirements for their spectrum.

Unfortunately They are currently actively building out a spectrum protection network to meet build it requirements..........

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[dro1984]

7 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

Dish is on the report as one of the company interested in the assets .. if the concession is to create a 4th carrier it would be dish .. anyone else will need more spectrum to get started.. the report say boost and possible another part of the prepaid business... maybe dish could get metro customers possibly.. and retain some of the sprint stores/towers to get going

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My opinion is Dish is interested only if the Government slices up Sprint's and some of T Mobile's  spectrum and basically hands it over on a silver tray at substantially lower than market value I'm sure...  I don't think Dish want's to cough up any more money than they have to...actually I don't get the feeling they are even really interested.  Dish is just stirring the pot.      And the longer the morons at the DOJ take the more they give the haters time to compose and assemble.   This should have been decided last week or 2 weeks ago when the FCC came out with their approval opinion.   They usually announce in unison...   Again... nothing is progressing normally.   

What happened to Amazon?  I've heard nothing more about them wanting to buy Boost.