Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

[nexgencpu]

16 minutes ago, Wiley_11 said:

Good luck with that.                  🤣

 

States that contribute the most to GDP just so happen to basically help subsidize cell service advancement to the rest of the country for the most part. Without the high concentration of customers from places like CA & NY, i cannot see them being able to offer any type of meaningful service in places that barely crack a million POPs.

[dkyeager]

1 hour ago, nexgencpu said:

States that contribute the most to GDP just so happen to basically help subsidize cell service advancement to the rest of the country for the most part. Without the high concentration of customers from places like CA & NY, i cannot see them being able to offer any type of meaningful service in places that barely crack a million POPs.

Why divide it by states? Metro areas subzidize most rural areas, at least for things likes roads and cell service.

[nexgencpu]

4 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

Why divide it by states? Metro areas subzidize most rural areas, at least for things likes roads and cell service.

Yes, but that doesn't emphasize the need to have the support of hugely populated states that contribute quite a bit more than others in general to our economy.

[ingenium]

I don't know if you folks ever went on Cell Mapper.com... but I checked my area and a few other metro areas... It seems Sprint has roughly 1/2 the cell towers as everyone else.    In my area there are 3 or 4 towers with Sprint equip.    Compared to T-Mobile that has 12.     Okay I thought... I'm doing something wrong.... I checked a different area of suburban Detroit and it's the same.....   Next I looked at some areas of Ohio.... each time coming up with Sprint having the fewest towers.      This is a critical reason I was so upset with Sprint and probably a prime reason VoLTE took so long to come our area.      This is also why I wanted the Merger.    If nothing else, tower density (and hopefully) better coverage will come in time as we migrate to T-Mo towers/ etc.  

Some cities are better mapped than others, it depends how many people are in that area actively mapping. Take a look at Sprint in Pittsburgh on there. Pretty much all the sites in the city are mapped. Likewise with T-Mobile. Att and Verizon aren't mapped nearly as extensively, and are likely missing a lot of sites.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

The latest...

[Brad The Beast]

2 hours ago, RedSpark said:

The latest...

Cheeky California. Gotta have their fingers in everything. 

[BlueAngel]

I really do hate California.

[Bob Newhart]

On 3/5/2020 at 8:40 PM, dkyeager said:

Why divide it by states? Metro areas subzidize most rural areas, at least for things likes roads and cell service.

Without rural areas, metro areas wouldn't even exist, for one simple reason, food. That is before you get to any other reason.

Why divide anything? All areas are needed.

[runagun]

2 hours ago, Bob Newhart said:

Without rural areas, metro areas wouldn't even exist, for one simple reason, food. That is before you get to any other reason.

Why divide anything? All areas are needed.

Very true.  But with the Advent of growing veggies with lamps.  Every year they're are going to be marginalized more and more.  Not a good time to be a farmer. On a side note.  It's so un american to hate someone from the city or country.  It's all ignorance talking.  We can all learn alot from each other if we took the time to listen. 

[bigsnake49]

14 hours ago, RedSpark said:

The latest...

Sheer speculation on their part. I have not seen the suggestion that they won't close on April 1 elsewhere. They might delay the integration in California but they won't stop it for the rest of the country.

[dkyeager]

9 hours ago, Bob Newhart said:

Without rural areas, metro areas wouldn't even exist, for one simple reason, food. That is before you get to any other reason.

Why divide anything? All areas are needed.

Dish's strategy is to just go after 70% of the county, which works for many people who rarely step out of the urban areas. Those who valve cell service more want coverage everywhere hence AT&T and Verizon.  The new T-Mobile aims to close that gap. 

In today's bi-polar political world, each area under appreciates the other.

[dro1984]

T-Mobile Sprint Merger can proceed per California

California's Becerra will hold a press conference (@12:30 ET) Wednesday to announce a settlement with the companies.

and from another report / news source:

US News and World Report T- Mobile Sprint Merger

[bigsnake49]

21 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

T-Mobile Sprint Merger can proceed per California

California's Becerra will hold a press conference (@12:30 ET) Wednesday to announce a settlement with the companies.

and from another report / news source:

US News and World Report T- Mobile Sprint Merger

Yeah but does that mean that the CPUC approves? 

[BlueAngel]

So this is good then?

[dro1984]

From c|net:

California won't continue fight to stop T-Mobile-Sprint megadeal The $26.5 billion merger between the third and fourth largest US wireless companies will finally close.

[dro1984]

6 minutes ago, BlueAngel said:

So this is good then?

Yes.  Now for sure, it's just waiting on the formalities... (CPUC and the NY Judge) but both are pretty much assured.

[dro1984]

13 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Yeah but does that mean that the CPUC approves? 

Not yet, but as one of the stories on line said, with this decision, what other course of action can they take up?   It pretty much is a no other choice situation (IMO).      What do you think?  

C|net sums it up this way: "Becerra's decision to give up the fight will likely mean that T-Mobile will be able to close the deal as it has promised by April 1. The California Public Utility Commission also must approve the deal, but the California AG's settlement with the companies makes it more likely that the California PUC will not oppose the deal. "

[bigsnake49]

While the result of the CPUC meeting is a foregone conclusion, the timing is not optimal. They will just be behind the other states.

[dro1984]

Just now, bigsnake49 said:

While the result of the CPUC meeting is a foregone conclusion, the timing is not optimal. They will just be behind the other states.

Agreed!   It's just foot dragging at this point.   Trying to be as much of a pain in the *** as possible.    We will give our blessing on April 16, ....   T Mobile should have said Closing on March 1st.   Then they (Cali) would have probably said we'll give our blessing on March 16.     There really isn't much choice but to just go along with it and stop wasting more money.  

[bigsnake49]

They want to close on April 1 because it is the beginning of the 2nd quarter and accounting is much easier if you do it at the end of the quarter/beginning of the next boundary.

[briank86]

Whether u are for or against the merger, I think we can be happy about the fact that there are no other roadblocks from this chapter ending and a new one to begin. Hopefully it bears improvements for all, but given the industry there will always be dissent. Instead of blaming individual states/groups for delays, can we just move forward to what brought us all here, talking about new tech, network integration, upgrades, rollout plans, etc.?

[dro1984]

How do you like the last bullet point of the California's Attn Gen:

Reimburse California and other coalition states up to $15 million for the costs of the investigation and litigation challenging the merger.

We sue you, we loose and you pay!?!       Politics at it's best!   I don't think T Mo should have to pay for their stubbornness.   

[shaferz]

12 minutes ago, briank86 said:

Whether u are for or against the merger, I think we can be happy about the fact that there are no other roadblocks from this chapter ending and a new one to begin. Hopefully it bears improvements for all, but given the industry there will always be dissent. Instead of blaming individual states/groups for delays, can we just move forward to what brought us all here, talking about new tech, network integration, upgrades, rollout plans, etc.?

Completely agree.  I am excited for this to get done, so we can start (hopefully) seeing continued improvements.  I want to see how things improve... i want to see which sites the new tmobile deems as 'keep sites', and I want to see where, given their current footprint, tmobile puts additional towers/antennas to get more complete coverage. 

 

One example is Central IL.

Existing Tmobile Coverage & Sprint Coverage attached.  Sprint already has a tower in Gibson City, while Old Tmobile does not.  If New Tmobile puts the full set of antennas up on the existing location in Gibson City, and a brand new site in or just outside of Sibley, IL with the full breadth of spectrum holdings, that huge hole with piss poor coverage is now covered.  Lots of really smart folks at Tmobile - my hope is that they are looking at stuff like this and making plans.

 

 

 

[RedSpark]

In reading the Press Release, California forced some incredible concessions by “New T-Mobile”. What they’ve effectively done is ensured that New T-Mobile will have a substantial price increase in 3-5 years to make up the difference.

[dro1984]

LOL... Like I said... I like the last bullet point.     $15 million for CA and our state partners in crime.... I mean just "partners"....    You pay us for suing you!   Blood sucking ....... 's !   LOL        I guess California does try to squeeze blood out of a Turnip.     They squeeze milk out of Almonds.... why not!