Jump to content

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread


Recommended Posts

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.   

 

Imo this would work in TMO/Sprint’s favor. If the concession is to create a 4th carrier .. a company to get started will require more spectrum than just 2.5 .. they will need low band/ mid band to get started which would require them to give up more spectrum.. dish already has that spectrum. So, if they have to give up 40mhz of 2.5 MHz to get the merger through I would call that a win

 

Dish said they are ready to spend 10 billion to start off

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

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.

I don't know where y'all got this idea that At&t and Verizon are lobbying against the merger.

They're not. This merger is good for them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where y'all got this idea that At&t and Verizon are lobbying against the merger.
They're not. This merger is good for them.

If John and team keep the un-carrier alive and really lower prices .. this merger won’t be so good for them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:


If John and team keep the un-carrier alive and really lower prices .. this merger won’t be so good for them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Better to have one carrier with lower prices than two. They're not against the merger at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-mobile-sprint-vow-fight-232342816.html

This brings it back full circle. Time to get a bigger tub of popcorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dkyeager said:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-mobile-sprint-vow-fight-232342816.html

This brings it back full circle. Time to get a bigger tub of popcorn.

Time for a bathroom break.... We've ate too many Large orders of Popcorn and big gulp sodas...    Sorry...couldn't resist the opportunity to bring "potty talk" into it.   LOL   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for a bathroom break.... We've ate too many Large orders of Popcorn and big gulp sodas...    Sorry...couldn't resist the opportunity to bring "potty talk" into it.   LOL   

Ready for more popcorn !!! Lol looks like states got a TRO approved and the merger will be at minimum delayed another 6 months.. sounds like it will be treated as a high profile case.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/t-mobile-sprint-merger-appears-to-be-in-major-trouble/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tyroned3222 said:

Ready for more popcorn !!! Lol looks like states got a TRO approved and the merger will be at minimum delayed another 6 months.. sounds like it will be treated as a high profile case.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/t-mobile-sprint-merger-appears-to-be-in-major-trouble/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to the article, it’s likely that the TRO will be approved.... but from what I can tell, it hasn’t been yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the article, it’s likely that the TRO will be approved.... but from what I can tell, it hasn’t been yet.

Not yet, but the hill is also reporting similar .. the states are very confident they can this approved ASAP.
“Legal experts who spoke to The Hill said the states have a strong antitrust case, predicting the ensuing legal battle could drag on for months, if not years.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tyroned3222 said:

Ready for more popcorn !!! Lol looks like states got a TRO approved and the merger will be at minimum delayed another 6 months.. sounds like it will be treated as a high profile case.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/t-mobile-sprint-merger-appears-to-be-in-major-trouble/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The states have not gotten a TRO yet but according to the post they have a better chance of getting one. However if the DOJ approves the merger, then it would be embarrassing for the states to have sued when the DOJ approved it with provisions that already addressed their concerns, mainly lower prices.

My legal strategy if I was Sprint is get the FCC's approval and then fight both the DOJ and attys general in court. There is absolutely no anti-trust concerns with this merger, not when the resulting company has only 25% of the wireless market revenue and whose customers are mainly prepaid bargain hunters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:


Not yet, but the hill is also reporting similar .. the states are very confident they can this approved ASAP.
“Legal experts who spoke to The Hill said the states have a strong antitrust case, predicting the ensuing legal battle could drag on for months, if not years.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The states have absolutely no anti-trust case. They might have a merger might eliminate a desperate, price bottom feeder (Sprint) case, if at that. This is a desperate attempt by the states to wring additional concessions. My 7 bullet points above should address most of the states' concern. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The states have not gotten a TRO yet but according to the post they have a better chance of getting one. However if the DOJ approves the merger, then it would be embarrassing for the states to have sued when the DOJ approved it with provisions that already addressed their concerns, mainly lower prices.
My legal strategy if I was Sprint is get the FCC's approval and then fight both the DOJ and attys general in court. There is absolutely no anti-trust concerns with this merger, not when the resulting company has only 25% of the wireless market revenue and whose customers are mainly prepaid bargain hunters.

Yup, insiders are saying they are very very confident they can get this approved . The TRO seems to over power the FCC and DOJ so to

“The DOJ has no power to head off the TRO, an attorney close to the merging parties said.

TMO/Sprint may have to battle this one in court


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The states have absolutely no anti-trust case. They might have a merger might eliminate a desperate, price bottom feeder (Sprint) case, if at that. This is a desperate attempt by the states to wring additional concessions. My 7 bullet points above should address most of the states' concern. 

Yup and it doesn’t, but this is very politically motivated and biased.
“There are some republican judges in the southern district but not many. The 2nd court of appeals has 11 republican judges out of 25 members. The merger is in tough shape based on this. If you are correct, the Supreme Court could save the merger? But, 4 justices have to agree to take the case. And if there isn’t a compelling constitutional reason for the court to take the case it may just allow lower court rulings to stand. What I mean is, if TMO were making a serious challenge to the anti-trust laws based on constitutional grounds, that would be a possible reason to hear the case. But, if TMO accepts the legitimacy of anti-trust laws and they are just fighting it out on the merits of the merger inside the current anti-trust system and they lose at the lower courts then I feel it would be likely the Supreme Court would accept the 2nd court of appeals decision.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would countersue the states in a more conservative jurisdiction and a accuse them of gross overreach of authority on constitutional grounds. Remember that the states have no standing to sue on anti-trust grounds. The lower price argument also sounds shallow when you pledge no price increases on current plans for 3 years. The other major demand about rural coverage, again is gross overreach on the federal level. They can probably sue in state courts on those grounds but not in federal courts, no jurisdiction. I included it in my 7 bullet point concessions because it would be a throwaway for T-Mobile. They are expanding their rural coverage anyway so it would be an easy concession to make.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, The Hill is a publication mostly made up of Dem's.   Just saying.    All the suing parties are Dems.     Not trying to make this sound political but it is.   this is totally on party lines.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also would not be shocked if the States were thrown out of Federal court for now.  They technically do not have a case until the Feds APPROVE the merger.  They have not been harmed until that point.  Suing because the Feds might approve a merger may not be sufficient.  Actually harm most likely is required, not potential.

Robert

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, S4GRU said:

I also would not be shocked if the States were thrown out of Federal court for now.  They technically do not have a case until the Feds APPROVE the merger.  They have not been harmed until that point.  Suing because the Feds might approve a merger may not be sufficient.  Actually harm most likely is required, not potential.

Robert

Hope you're right Robert.    I'm hoping this gets all ironed out.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that there is "no anti-trust concern" seems entirely at odds with what I have read about the HHI calculation for the merger.  (HHI: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hhi.asp )  The HHI value of the merged company would increase its value by 400-500 in the wireless market from what I understand, which puts it squarely within the range of anti-trust concerns, which arise when the HHI value increases by 200 or more.

I'm even less clear on what the point of highlighting perceived media biases has to do with anything.

- Trip

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HHI is a very flawed measurement. One of those examples from your link illustrates it:

For example, assume an industry has 20 firms. Firm one has a market share of 48.59% and each of the 19 remaining firms has a market share of 2.71% each. The HHI would exactly 2,500, indicating a highly concentrated market. If firm number one had a market share of 35.82% and each of the remaining firms had a 3.38% market share, the HHI would be exactly 1,500, indicating a competitive marketplace.

In both of those cases, you have a very high market share firm dominating the market place. If you applied the example to the wireless marketplace which has tremendous capital expenses every year and more so during generational deployments (3G-4G-5G), the high maketshare firm would quickly swamp the smaller firms since they don't have the scale to compete. Now if it was a low capital investment kind of market place then the smaller firms have a much better chance to survive and compete. 

If this merger is denied I think that Sprint will survive but never thrive or compete with the other 3 on anything but price which means that it cannot invest in its network to the degree that the other 3 can. It will fall behind. The big problem with wireless in this country is not rural deployments, it is suburban and exurban deployments. I do believe that you need about 60-65,000 macro sites to cover the urban/suburban/exurban areas even if you do roam on others for rural coverage. Sprint does not have the low and mid band spectrum that the other 3 have. Can they make up for it? Yes if they can host Dish's spectrum and Comcast's 600Mhz spectrum plus pick off some of the speculators 600Mhz spectrum. But Dish does not want to invest in a network or be a carrier particularly in a 4 carrier marketplace, they want to speculate on their spectrum. The big cable cos want to deploy CBRS and C-Band spectrum using stand mount and pole mount small cells. Can they be convince to host Sprint's 2.5 GHz small cells also ala Altice and Cox? Sure, there are some efforts here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, S4GRU said:

I also would not be shocked if the States were thrown out of Federal court for now.  They technically do not have a case until the Feds APPROVE the merger.  They have not been harmed until that point.  Suing because the Feds might approve a merger may not be sufficient.  Actually harm most likely is required, not potential.

Robert

DOJ might stall for this very reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, S4GRU said:

I also would not be shocked if the States were thrown out of Federal court for now.  They technically do not have a case until the Feds APPROVE the merger.  They have not been harmed until that point.  Suing because the Feds might approve a merger may not be sufficient.  Actually harm most likely is required, not potential.

Robert

It is questionable whether the states have any case at all. Interstate communication is the sole purview of the FCC and interstate commerce is overseen by the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission. States - even acting in concert - basically have no standing on either the communication or the antitrust aspects of the merger. At some point, the Federal courts will make this finding. It remains to be seen whether they delay so long that the merger fails. 

  • Like 2
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 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.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
  • Recently Browsing

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