Jump to content

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread


Recommended Posts

2.5 was the sweet spot for two versions of the last generation of wireless airlink, often trumpeted by the last two owners and the possible future owner for the next airlink. Neither has materialized as such except in New York, Chicago, areas of LA and other top 10 markets. So you have to imagine Chicago is a good start for the next generation in a new frequency, all in all it looks good on paper, does OK on the ground, and may perform well in a city pending some future updates.

The other ~285 million Americans would like something that works where there is not a light pole every 400-800 feet, or macro every .5 kilometers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And what will this all mean for S4GRU?  We are in a wait and see mode before we decide how to adapt.  Until then, we will be here every day with you all, plotting our wireless destiny. Robert

Alright.  There may not be a Sprint anymore, but the same rules apply.  Just incessant complaining about the old Sprint is getting old.  People will start checking out because it just will become a co

And this is the truth that many of us are going to learn.  T-Mobile is not perfect everywhere.  They have some markets where they have some real bad towers here and there.  And there are some entire m

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, belusnecropolis said:

2.5 was the sweet spot for two versions of the last generation of wireless airlink, often trumpeted by the last two owners and the possible future owner for the next airlink. Neither has materialized as such except in New York, Chicago, areas of LA and other top 10 markets. So you have to imagine Chicago is a good start for the next generation in a new frequency, all in all it looks good on paper, does OK on the ground, and may perform well in a city pending some future updates.

The other ~285 million Americans would like something that works where there is not a light pole every 400-800 feet, or macro every .5 kilometers.  

You say the top 10 cities as if that's statistically insignificant. The top 10 metro areas contain 26% of the population of the U.S. and that ranking doesn't even include cities like San Francisco, Detroit, Seattle, Baltimore, San Diego, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tyroned3222 said:


Let’s give it the benefits of the doubt.. it’s still early still more optimizations to add, a better phone without a mod is coming. I think with the new Samsung galaxy S10 5G and as Verizon adds more tech to the 5G nodes. It will be better in the coming months


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The law of physics will kill how much billions Verizon spend deploying that useless spectrum. Its already looking like the Sprint 4G WiMAX launch.  What surprised me the most was that their executives said they didn't have a plan to buy more spectrum down the road. Looks like Lowell McAdams left the chip before started to sink. Even the CBRS 3.5ghz band will have coverage issues which makes me believe this is the game Uncle Charlie at Dish is playing.  One of these carriers will come to the tablet whether they want to or not in order to acquire all that unused spectrum they have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

 You say the top 10 cities as if that's statistically insignificant. The top 10 metro areas contain 26% of the population of the U.S. and that ranking doesn't even include cities like San Francisco, Detroit, Seattle, Baltimore, San Diego, etc.

You say the top 10 cities as if they are a dense urban sprawl containing no outlier areas. Detroit, Baltimore and San Diego are great examples of areas once packed with such an example that have sprawling areas now unoccupied but contain smaller pockets bursting at the seams. Yes, the other 74% of Americans would like the option, all ~285 million of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The law of physics will kill how much billions Verizon spend deploying that useless spectrum. Its already looking like the Sprint 4G WiMAX launch.  What surprised me the most was that their executives said they didn't have a plan to buy more spectrum down the road. Looks like Lowell McAdams left the chip before started to sink. Even the CBRS 3.5ghz band will have coverage issues which makes me believe this is the game Uncle Charlie at Dish is playing.  One of these carriers will come to the tablet whether they want to or not in order to acquire all that unused spectrum they have.

Wonder what he’s waiting on. They would have been bought that spectrum by now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, belusnecropolis said:

You say the top 10 cities as if they are a dense urban sprawl containing no outlier areas. Detroit, Baltimore and San Diego are great examples of areas once packed with such an example that have sprawling areas now unoccupied but contain smaller pockets bursting at the seams. Yes, the other 74% of Americans would like the option, all ~285 million of them.

I absolutely didn't. My quote about 26% of the population living in those metro areas is inclusive of their urban sprawl, which is why I used the term "metro" and not "city limits". Additionally, it's only ~240 Million outside of those metro areas.

That said, some area has to be first and Sprint is right to tackle the most populous metros first as those are the areas where most of their customers come from and will have the fastest return on investment. Eventually the rest of the country will get 5G speeds. Sprint isn't U.S. Cellular. They can't afford to focus on rural areas where they're already in a weaker position overall until their stronger areas are doing well. That's why Sprint is now able to deploy Band 41 to most of their cell sites after years of serious investment in larger metros and lagging investment outside of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

I absolutely didn't my quote about 26% of the population living in those metro areas is inclusive of their urban sprawl, which is why I used the term "metro" and not "city limits". Additionally, it's only ~240 Million outside of those metro areas.

 That said, some area has to be first and Sprint is right to tackle the most populous metros first as those are the areas where most of their customers come from and will have the fastest return on investment. Eventually the rest of the country will get 5G speeds. Sprint isn't U.S. Cellular. They can't afford to focus on rural areas where they're already in a weaker position overall until their stronger areas are doing well. That's why Sprint is now able to deploy Band 41 to most of their cell sites after years of serious investment in larger metros and lagging investment outside of them.

That is why I said cities, and not metro areas, where that remaining ~45 million Americans live. On the numbers we seem to agree with a bit of fuzziness in the middle. The vast majority do not get advanced services deployed, while subsidizing cities that do. The numbers say we are at saturation for cellular service, everyone has one, some two and we are all a paying customer; so they sure can afford to focus on areas that have less competition. It is working wonders for T-Mobile, Firstnet upgrades are paying off nationwide for AT&T. Simply under investing in areas that need coverage to make a buck back in the city is a poor practice, you can't get new paying customers with out service.

Slapping another channel in an area you already have users is only as sustainable as your base / resources. Your rates haven't gone up every time they added a 2.5 carrier or upgraded your local macro to MM>8t8r> NR have they? The customer count is stagnant at best with Sprint in what you describe as high ROI environments. It is falling in areas they have not touched outside of the city, and they have no ability to gain more customers in areas they do not have service, but a base of customers. So that money coming in is from any new adds outside these areas or a nomadic pool of switchers in the city. Pouring money into an area that is not interested in what you offer is a bad use of tight funds, even if it offers cool speed tests in a 4 block area. Keeping ahead of capacity constraints is good for that local userbase of course, but again it does not spread nearly as far and that resource will be consumed quickly, causing another pardon our dust addition for the same user base that is not expanding. This is why everyone else is eventually, and not tomorrow with Sprint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2019 at 4:24 AM, runagun said:

Who the heck wants to live in Overland Park KS?  It's like the damn Truman show. Marcello couldn't wait to leave. Lol

Masa actually bought a house which neighbors Marcelo’s: https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article42616254.html

It’s now on the market for $9.2 Million: https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2018/11/18/claure-masayoshi-mission-hills-mansions-for-sale.html

Did he actually ever go inside?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Masa actually bought a house which neighbors Marcelo’s: https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article42616254.html

It’s now on the market for $9.2 Million: https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2018/11/18/claure-masayoshi-mission-hills-mansions-for-sale.html

Did he actually ever go inside?

This is hilarious, I didn't know this. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 1:46 PM, Paynefanbro said:

I absolutely didn't. My quote about 26% of the population living in those metro areas is inclusive of their urban sprawl, which is why I used the term "metro" and not "city limits". Additionally, it's only ~240 Million outside of those metro areas.

That said, some area has to be first and Sprint is right to tackle the most populous metros first as those are the areas where most of their customers come from and will have the fastest return on investment. Eventually the rest of the country will get 5G speeds. Sprint isn't U.S. Cellular. They can't afford to focus on rural areas where they're already in a weaker position overall until their stronger areas are doing well. That's why Sprint is now able to deploy Band 41 to most of their cell sites after years of serious investment in larger metros and lagging investment outside of them.

Ok, I know probably just my OCD here. You guys are tossing around three different terms that mean three very different things. City, Metro, and Market. Market is very subjective, a retailer, an event company, and a telecommunications company all may serve the same area and define the market differently. Metro is a conglomeration of cities or townships with a central city of more than 50,000 people. A city in most states is a municipality with more than 1,000 persons. Now to the point, the top ten cities do not contain 26 percent of the population, the top metros do, however that is completely disjointed from what Sprint or anyone else calls a market. So if Sprint says they are going to deploy something to Kansas City, do they mean just the city, the metro, or their defined market? You don't know, I don't know, and chances are anyone not in the network engineering team doesn't know. So this argument is pointless. The number of people covered or not covered and the impact of that is completely subjective to what they mean and where you live.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, belusnecropolis said:

That is specifically One Billions Dollars more then the anticipated New T-Mobile capex over the next 3 years*. Without knowing a timeline for this spend, it is hard to say how crazy this sounds, but it sounds crazy. Good work the non profit performed for negotiating such a commitment, it is the equivalent to much of the value of Sprint, including debt.

The $41 billion is the nationwide Capex spend over the first 3 years of the combined company. It had previously been "up to $40 billion" when the merger was announced so I don't think California really got anything there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

The $41 billion is the nationwide Capex spend over the first 3 years of the combined company. It had previously been "up to $40 billion" when the merger was announced so I don't think California really got anything there.

Oh yeah I read this wrong. Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 12:15 PM, RedSpark said:

Barron’s take on the merger:

Sprint’s Merger With T-Mobile Is Taking Too Long. Why It’s Time to Worry.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-the-sprint-t-mobile-merger-is-taking-so-long-51554904750

Meh. Sounds like someone is trying to make an article out of nothing.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 1:14 PM, RedSpark said:

Masa actually bought a house which neighbors Marcelo’s: https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article42616254.html

It’s now on the market for $9.2 Million: https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2018/11/18/claure-masayoshi-mission-hills-mansions-for-sale.html

Did he actually ever go inside?

Very nice to be rich.  Own mansions that nobody lives in.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, JimBob said:

Very nice to be rich.  Own mansions that nobody lives in.

How degenerate is someone that has a portfolio of empty mansions, that will never be a home to their family? This spending is kind of sinister if it was meant to drive local support behind the Softbank acquisition at the time.

"Hey look, I bought a mansion in your town, so now I'm not only here to empty the largest local employer of value, but also your real estate markets neighbor."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 8:51 AM, S4GRU said:

They will just keep their current live sites to serve as license protection sites and continue with T-Mobile and AT&T roaming in the area.  Sad for the wasted opportunity.

Robert

Sprint spectrum will get used when the merger passes tho 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

https://www.t-mobile.com/news/what-is-your-5g-future

Legere is pushing this hard with his trademark infomercial style...

he appears to be adding weight -- merger stress perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Analyst:  If US wants to be leader in 5G, it should approve Sprint, T-Mobile merger

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/in-race-for-5g-us-should-approve-sprint-t-mobile-merger-analyst.html

  • A Sprint, T-Mobile merger is the path to the best 5G network we’re likely to see in the U.S.
  • Sprint is sitting on a “phenomenal band of spectrum” that can run the technology
  • The merger will in turn drive AT&T and Verizon to invest
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • lilotimz locked and unlocked this topic

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

    • It kinda just blows my mind that it's been almost a year and a half since start of auction and there still isn't a band designation. Why spend almost a billion dollars (T-Mobile's $873 million plus Sprint's $114 million) if you can't even get around to working something like that out with the 3GPP? I pray there's something going on behind the scenes, but I'm not too hopeful seeing as the only other owner of the band is DISH, haha.    I'd be shocked if T-Mobile doesn't keep a strong mmWave presence in lower/mid-Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn with their 5G small-cell rollout. That's key use case. But I agree, it'll definitely be interesting to see what they do outside of that area. You gotta imagine that Verizon played a pretty big part in how the nodes were designed, and Verizon typically loads their small cells up with every mid/high-band tech they've got. So it shouldn't be a matter of if the nodes support the tech, just if T-Mobile deploys the radios. IMO, T-Mobile's mmWave strategy (for both macros and small cells) kinda comes down to if T-Mobile is open to exploring the possibility of mmWave-based Home Internet in NYC.   I really hope they do keep them. Even if they aren't immediately upgraded to 5G, they'd be a big benefit for the network in general. Plus, fiber is already run, permits are already signed, sites are already built. Hopefully the neutral-nature of the nodes makes conversion easy.  I haven't spotted any nodes broadcasting the keep PLMN, but I'm not all that surprised about that.   Agreed. There are one or two redditors (who shall not be named) who love to spread questionable info, especially when it comes to NYC. Every carrier has Manhattan blanketed with mmWave! You can get FIOS at any address! T-Mobile has mmWave on every site and it's fast! T-Mobile has the densest small-cell network! Every site has 5gb/s backhaul (or if it doesn't, it's "just about to be upgraded")! It's really weird. Subreddit used to be so much better before it blew up and a handful of great contributors left.
    • My best guess is that it's a combination of the correct equipment not being available to support all of T-Mobile's mmWave bands and n41 taking precedence over mmWave deployment nationwide. It'll be interesting to see whether T-Mobile decides to make mmWave a citywide thing like Verizon (that they'll aggregate with n41 for gigabit speeds in more places) or if they'll just deploy it in stadiums, airports, and convention centers.  When T-Mobile acquired Metro, they retained pretty much all of their DAS sites. If they retain all of Sprint's small cells, they'd have a small cell network easily rivaling Verizon and could have an extremely dense mmWave/LAA/CBRS footprint to compliment their already dense (in most places) macro network. Someone recently made a post about how T-Mobile's tests in C-band were interfering with a local satellite TV operator so it seems like T-Mobile definitely has some interest in getting C-band deployed sooner than later, even if they won't be able to use the spectrum just yet. But like you said, it'll probably be another year or so before we start seeing deployments of that. I completely missed that thread but reading over it, so many people are very confused about the mmWave situation in NYC and T-Mobile's network here as a whole. It's pretty sad how people completely disregarded OP immediately.
    • Interestingly enough, today I came across a site in Seattle where they did the same thing. Previously, Commscope FFHH-65B-R3 panels were live with quadband; now there's only 1900/2100/2500. My knee jerk reaction is that I don't like this deployment. It makes optimizing handoffs sloppy and complicated. I  shot an email to the Seattle network team asking what the logic is - let's see what they say. 
    • I remember that Textra could ask for a delivered notice. Not sure exactly how that works. Haven't used it in a long time though, Android Messages works fine for me plus get the benefit of RCS.
    • It'll definitely be interesting to see what they do, especially considering there's now a lot more money in the pipeline! Personally, I'm most excited to see what they'll be doing with the new 5G small cells - this should be an opportunity for them to get a super dense n41, LTE-LAA, mmWave, and maybe even CBRS (there is 80MHz of GAA available...) infill. Can't wait to see what they'll be doing with these. This also brings up the question of how they'll be addressing mmWave in the future - have they been holding off on upgrades due to their n41 rollout, or because they're waiting for these small cells to be available? Reminds me of how they paused their LTE-LAA macro rollout, but then began to equip their existing LTE oDAS nodes with LTE-LAA. I am curious about their plans for C-Band, but I'm kinda of the impression that it's a very low priority for them. I doubt we'll be seeing any C-Band rollout for at least another year or so, T-Mobile's spectrum isn't available for deployment until Dec 2023. All that said, their n41 rollout does leave them with a ton of capacity to work with. Makes me wonder if upgrades (besides spectrum reallocation) in NYC will be put on the backburner for a little while. Lots of non-NYC Sprint sites to convert, and I've even spotted some recent Greenfield rural buildout upstate (if you can believe that). On another note, very amusing to see the T-Mobile subreddit respond to that NYC mmWave speedtest the other day.
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...