Jump to content
Nextel49

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

“The Delrahim-Pai lunch meeting was held at Washington, D.C., restaurant Central Michel Richard. People with knowledge of the meeting say it’s unclear if Delrahim was persuaded by Pai’s arguments in support of the merger.”

Quintessential DC Power Lunch, but I hope this wasn’t billed to the taxpayers. They could have gone to Pret or Panera and had the same conversation.

This Town is such a caricature of itself.

I really don’t want this merger to go through. Having four carriers ensures enough market competition. There’s no going back if we go to three carriers. I don’t care what divestitures or assurances are given. It won’t matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

“The Delrahim-Pai lunch meeting was held at Washington, D.C., restaurant Central Michel Richard. People with knowledge of the meeting say it’s unclear if Delrahim was persuaded by Pai’s arguments in support of the merger.”

Quintessential DC Power Lunch, but I hope this wasn’t billed to the taxpayers. They could have gone to Pret or Panera and had the same conversation.

This Town is such a caricature of itself.

I really don’t want this merger to go through. Having four carriers ensures enough market competition. There’s no going back if we go to three carriers. I don’t care what divestitures or assurances are given. It won’t matter.

I see the wireless market currently as two mega carriers and two also rans.  Merger should help rural and small city coverage. Coverage should also be more even simply due to queue theory.  Not certain if it will help or hurt me personally.  Will have to wait to see which Sprint sites are retained and other numerous details.

I also don't discount the merger risks: the merger can be approved yet be a business failure.  The waters have been roiled enough that other players may emerge from different sectors béfore both carriers become one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I think merging the networks but not the marketing organizations makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dkyeager said:

I see the wireless market currently as two mega carriers and two also rans.  Merger should help rural and small city coverage. Coverage should also be more even simply due to queue theory.  Not certain if it will help or hurt me personally.  Will have to wait to see which Sprint sites are retained and other numerous details.

I also don't discount the merger risks: the merger can be approved yet be a business failure.  The waters have been roiled enough that other players may emerge from different sectors béfore both carriers become one.

I agree that coverage will improve as a result of the merger, and the combination of 600 MHz and 2.5 GHz will create a heck of a network. My issue with this is that the two “also rans” do actually provide competition, and that competitive effect will be reduced if a merger was allowed. The combined entity won’t have anything to offset it. To be honest,  I don’t believe there will be additional players to take their place. I believe this merger will be an irreversible mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that coverage will improve as a result of the merger, and the combination of 600 MHz and 2.5 GHz will create a heck of a network. My issue with this is that the two “also rans” do actually provide competition, and that competitive effect will be reduced if a merger was allowed. The combined entity won’t have anything to offset it. To be honest,  I don’t believe there will be additional players to take their place. I believe this merger will be an irreversible mistake.

Deal is very close to being approve.. some spectrum concessions have been made in private.. state ags will sue at 2pm in a press conference, but they won’t win... this deal is done

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

Deal is very close to being approve.. some spectrum concessions have been made in private.. state ags will sue at 2pm in a press conference, but they won’t win... this deal is done

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where are you getting this information from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where are you getting this information from?

States have officially filed to sue... sources say this means the doj is ready to approve.. after spectrum concessions are now in play these are the states suing... still no official word from DOJ , but if doj doesn’t approve.. tmo will pull out

556d830746b1b467008f0869d0d716bd.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States have officially filed to sue... sources say this means the doj is ready to approve.. after spectrum concessions are now in play these are the states suing
556d830746b1b467008f0869d0d716bd.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What spectrum will they give up?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What spectrum will they give up?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk


That info hasn’t been released, but spectrum divesture is in play


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you for a moment think that the attys general are suing because they have our interests at heart you have not been paying attention. I bet you there has been intense lobbying by the big 2 to extract concessions that would weaken the merged company.

I have no problem such as we will match Verizon's coverage within 3 years or roaming agreements will stay in effect for the next 3 years or other such concessions but I have a major problem with spectrum concessions.

Edited by bigsnake49
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm wondering if the time line here is on purpose?   Perhaps the States attorney generals knew the DOJ was about to make their decision and they rushed to file today, with the goal of filing papers in court before the DOJ made a public decision?   They've had so long to do this.   None of it makes sense.    Kinda their way of forcing the hand of the DOJ???    Thoughts?   

Edited by dro1984
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering if the time line here is on purpose?   Perhaps the States attorney generals knew the DOJ was about to make their decision and they rushed to file today, with the goal of filing papers in court before the DOJ made a public decision?   They've had so long to do this.   None of it makes sense.    Kinda their way of forcing the hand of the DOJ???    Thoughts?   

After the private meetings( one private meeting with the head of FCC and than John had one yesterday with Marcelo with doj) and additional concessions .. the states seem to have insight that the merger is almost approved. So, the states took charge in saying: go ahead and approve if you want we will sue and make it official now that we will sue.. If DOJ also says no, than TMO and sprint will pull out. If DOj says yes they will fight in court and a delay will come with that.. if DOJ approves the merger can begin and the integration of networks can start only thing can stop it (wether injunction is granted to block the deal in my opinion. It was premature to file they don’t even know terms)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dro1984 said:

I'm wondering if the time line here is on purpose?   Perhaps the States attorney generals knew the DOJ was about to make their decision and they rushed to file today, with the goal of filing papers in court before the DOJ made a public decision?   They've had so long to do this.   None of it makes sense.    Kinda their way of forcing the hand of the DOJ???    Thoughts?   

I believe the reason merger talks are so nonsensical is that the whole thing is very political.

"They're obviously trying to place pressure on Delrahim to do the right thing," said Sohn, now a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy. "They’ve seen all the same evidence that he’s seen. They know that his decision is political, and not based on the substance at this point. They’re basically calling him into question."

This Politico article IMHO reveals at least some of the politics of the merger.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/11/lawsuit-block-t-mobile-sprint-merger-1359851

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SuzieTuesday said:

I believe the reason merger talks are so nonsensical is that the whole thing is very political.

"They're obviously trying to place pressure on Delrahim to do the right thing," said Sohn, now a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy. "They’ve seen all the same evidence that he’s seen. They know that his decision is political, and not based on the substance at this point. They’re basically calling him into question."

This Politico article IMHO reveals at least some of the politics of the merger.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/11/lawsuit-block-t-mobile-sprint-merger-1359851

“The suit was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.”

Why was it filed under seal?

Share this post


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

“The suit was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.”

Why was it filed under seal?

Under Seal just means where it was filed. Not the same as "Sealed" which means it can't be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OhioCalling said:

Under Seal just means where it was filed. Not the same as "Sealed" which means it can't be seen.

I read it this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_seal

”Filed under seal”

Filing under seal is a procedure allowing sensitive or confidential information to be filed with a court without becoming a matter of public record.[1] The court generally must give permission for the material to remain under seal.[2]

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RedSpark said:

I read it this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_seal

Filing under seal is a procedure allowing sensitive or confidential information to be filed with a court without becoming a matter of public record.[1] The court generally must give permission for the material to remain under seal.[2]

I stand corrected then, Guess part of it must be not available to the public. My bad.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I stand corrected then, Guess part of it must be not available to the public. My bad.

I’m curious what they wouldn’t want public about it. Any idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, but I think that T Mobile and Sprint would sue ... even if the DOJ said no.   Just my thoughts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My novice opinion is Sprint has been going after the lender approvals of later to try to cover the credit aspects of the agreement.  If DOJ then approves, T-Mobile may owe them $600 Million, but Sprint would have to do whatever T-Mobile decides: sue as is, sue and start merger in other states, drop merger.

Network Joint Venture with separate marketing may make more sense, but the problem is how the Sprint debt is handled.

I can also see multiple ways this gets played no matter what happens, all depending on the larger players.  Softbank might even accept Sprint being split apart and sold to multiple entities if their dream of proper scale through a T-Mobile merger can not be realized.  Failure of the merger does not guarantee four national wireless competitors. Wireless may move beyond that definition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This merger is now totally different from what was originally planned merging and creating a fourth carrier, giving up spectrum, at this point I sound like a broken record.  Son needs to give up and take the "L" and sell Sprint to someone that will actually spend the money and get Sprint back on its feet, if Sprint needs to file chapter 11 bankruptcy,  do stock offerings, sell portions of their network so be it this has become a clown show at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This merger is now totally different from what was originally planned merging and creating a fourth carrier, giving up spectrum, at this point I sound like a broken record.  Son needs to give up and take the "L" and sell Sprint to someone that will actually spend the money and get Sprint back on its feet, if Sprint needs to file chapter 11 bankruptcy,  do stock offerings, sell portions of their network so be it this has become a clown show at this point.



I don’t think anyone would buy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...