Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread

[MkVsTheWorld]

Hey! Another West MD user. I feel they will keep this as USC roams on Sprint outside of native areas. 

Yes sir. AT&T just doesn't cut it at my in-laws cabin out there. And since I'm out of Baltimore, that only leaves Sprint or Verizon. I suppose the new T-Mobile could workout for me if USCC gets their VoLTE deployment moving. Hopefully that happens before everyone on Sprint gets shifted to the T-Mobile GSM network.

[greenbastard]

5 hours ago, dro1984 said:

I have a feeling Sprint and T-Mobile will have to give up some spectrum (if it's approved) or at the very least will be subject to extensive build out conditions (which I have no problem with)...DOJ or FCC might even say, you have to remain a value driven carrier and offer rurual areas plans for under $--.00 .       They will be in-between AT&T and Verizon for size... so they will be a new "Major Player".   

They probably won't have to unload any lowband spectrum. At&t at one point owned 100 Mhz of lowband spectrum in Dallas. Sprint+T-Mobile won't own more than 60 mhz of lowband spectrum in most major markets and 70 Mhz in the rest of the country. 

Midband spectrum is where we'll see some moves happen. I think they'll end up trading the spectrum they have to unload to At&t/Verizon for spectrum in other markets where they still fall below the spectrum screen.

[though]

12 hours ago, MkVsTheWorld said:

I hope that we get to keep the penalty-free USCC LTE data roaming on the new T-Mobile. That's been one of the standout features over Verizon because Verizon only does 1x data roaming on USCC (Deep Creek Lake, West MD, etc.). I know T-Mobile has some LTE roaming on to USCC, but only in VoLTE areas far away from Deep Creek Lake and only specific phones.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Dkoellerwx]

9 hours ago, Arysyn said:

My suggestion at the time I mentioned selling PCS, which was back when Sprint mostly had 5x5 of it in use for PCS. Of course since then, Marcelo & team got working on it to grow the PCS spectrum portfolio to 10x10, and even in some areas to 15x15., and with that I'm no longer supportive of the idea for Sprint to sell its PCS spectrum. 

What you never seemed to grasp with that argument was Sprint has had far more than just 5x5 in PCS the entire time. In most markets, they have had 20, 30, or even 40MHz (that would be 20x20). That was before the spectrum trades that increased holdings in select markets. They never really had a shortage of PCS spectrum (in most areas), it was just not used for LTE at that specific point in time. Now that most devices are LTE capable, they have been cutting 1x and EVDO to change that spectrum over to LTE. We knew that would happen, which is why no one was supportive of your idea to sell PCS spectrum. 

[Arysyn]

1 hour ago, Dkoellerwx said:

What you never seemed to grasp with that argument was Sprint has had far more than just 5x5 in PCS the entire time. In most markets, they have had 20, 30, or even 40MHz (that would be 20x20) in most markets. That was before the spectrum trades that increased holdings in select markets. They never really had a shortage of PCS spectrum (in most areas), it was just not used for LTE at that specific point in time. Now that most devices are LTE capable, they have been cutting 1x and EVDO to change that spectrum over to LTE. We knew that would happen, which is why no one was supportive of your idea to sell PCS spectrum. 

At the time I asked, but what I was told was fairly limited.

[danlodish345]

4 hours ago, greenbastard said:

They probably won't have to unload any lowband spectrum. At&t at one point owned 100 Mhz of lowband spectrum in Dallas. Sprint+T-Mobile won't own more than 60 mhz of lowband spectrum in most major markets and 70 Mhz in the rest of the country. 

Midband spectrum is where we'll see some moves happen. I think they'll end up trading the spectrum they have to unload to At&t/Verizon for spectrum in other markets where they still fall below the spectrum screen.

In my area T-Mobile only owns 15 megahertz total of low-band spectrum.

[greenbastard]

1 hour ago, Arysyn said:

At the time I asked, but what I was told was fairly limited.

Compared to the midband spectrum of the other three carriers, it is. In the market to the south of me, Sprint only owns 30 Mhz of midband spectrum.

Verizon owns 60 Mhz of midband spectrum, At&t owns 90 Mhz, and T-Mobile owns 80 Mhz (PCS+AWS).

But this doesn't change the fact that your suggestion was a terrible one. Selling their spectrum would have been a disaster of epic proportions. Their network has never been dense enough for 2.5 Ghz to work properly in most markets. Midband spectrum was crucial for their survival while they figured out how to properly deploy B41. Unfortunately they never got around to it for a myriad of reasons we've beaten to death on this board.

[danlodish345]

26 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

Compared to the midband spectrum of the other three carriers, it is. In the market to the south of me, Sprint only owns 30 Mhz of midband spectrum.

Verizon owns 60 Mhz of midband spectrum, At&t owns 90 Mhz, and T-Mobile owns 80 Mhz (PCS+AWS).

But this doesn't change the fact that your suggestion was a terrible one. Selling their spectrum would have been a disaster of epic proportions. Their network has never been dense enough for 2.5 Ghz to work properly in most markets. Midband spectrum was crucial for their survival while they figured out how to properly deploy B41. Unfortunately they never got around to it for a myriad of reasons we've beaten to death on this board.

 In my state T-Mobile owns only 50 something megaherz total Spectrum so T-Mobile has almost none here. But Sprint AT&T and Verizon have twice as much Spectrum as T-Mobile. So T-Mobile is at a very serious disadvantage here. And the if the acquisition goes through then T-Mobile can get 20 megahertz total low band Spectrum for the area.

[bigsnake49]

Does anybody know how the New T-Mobile will handle Band 25/Band 2 after the merger? All new T-Mobile phones with band 25? MFBI? both?

Edited May 7, 2018 by bigsnake49

[Arysyn]

9 hours ago, greenbastard said:

Compared to the midband spectrum of the other three carriers, it is. In the market to the south of me, Sprint only owns 30 Mhz of midband spectrum.

Verizon owns 60 Mhz of midband spectrum, At&t owns 90 Mhz, and T-Mobile owns 80 Mhz (PCS+AWS).

But this doesn't change the fact that your suggestion was a terrible one. Selling their spectrum would have been a disaster of epic proportions. Their network has never been dense enough for 2.5 Ghz to work properly in most markets. Midband spectrum was crucial for their survival while they figured out how to properly deploy B41. Unfortunately they never got around to it for a myriad of reasons we've beaten to death on this board.

Consider though my suggestion was made to be something Sprint could have done after getting enough of the 600mhz spectrum. In no means did I intend to suggest Sprint should have sold the spectrum right away without the other spectrum in place. They obviously need something there to provide service where the vastly underdeployed band41 isn't.

When I had Sprint, I was always hoping for band41 to connect, because being on PCS was miserable. I made that known here and was told basically "yeah, its 5x5 in Chicago" without ever being told, "Well, Sprint has another 20 or 30mhz of spectrum they can use when CDMA goes away. Despite that, I did figure there must be some extra spectrum being used for voice, but with the news of no VoLTE and other issues, I figured if Sprint could just get a good amount of 600mhz and deploy that, using sales of what I thought were limited amounts of PCS, could get a quick network boost from the 600mhz spectrum without having to densify at all and would quickly remedy the situation with PCS.

Sprint's band41 clearly is an amazing spectrum Sprint made a really wise choice in getting when they did, and by deploying it quickly also could have remedied the complaints about its network. Sprint was on its way to doing that, but sadly though, Softbank got in the picture. I figured with the change to austerity, this would be a way to earn money used on a more practical deployment of a spectrum with great range while letting band41 be the short distance spectrum.

[greenbastard]

1 hour ago, Arysyn said:

Consider though my suggestion was made to be something Sprint could have done after getting enough of the 600mhz spectrum. In no means did I intend to suggest Sprint should have sold the spectrum right away without the other spectrum in place. They obviously need something there to provide service where the vastly underdeployed band41 isn't.

It still would have been a terrible idea. Selling spectrum = slower speeds.

[Rawvega]

7 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

Does anybody know how the New T-Mobile will handle Band 25/Band 2 after the merger? All new T-Mobile phones with band 25? MFBI? both?

I have no idea, however I don't see why New T-Mobile phones wouldn't support both band 2 (for roaming) & band 25 (native) assuming that they aren't forced to divest the G block. On the network side, since band 25 is a superset including band 2 it seems like it would make the most sense for New TMobile phones to make use of it while also broadcasting band 2 (presumably via MFBI) for legacy T-Mobile devices and incoming roaming revenue.

[bigsnake49]

23 minutes ago, Rawvega said:

I have no idea, however I don't see why New T-Mobile phones wouldn't support both band 2 (for roaming) & band 25 (native) assuming that they aren't forced to divest the G block. On the network side, since band 25 is a superset including band 2 it seems like it would make the most sense for New TMobile phones to make use of it while also broadcasting band 2 (presumably via MFBI) for legacy T-Mobile devices and incoming roaming revenue.

I'm thinking that both will be required for a smooth transition. I don't see why G Block should be divested. I can see a lot of horse trading possible to get contiguous spectrum on PCS and possibly trading Band 66 for spectrum for Band 4 or PCS

Edited May 7, 2018 by bigsnake49

[danlodish345]

I'm thinking that both will be required for a smooth transition. I don't see why G Block should be divested.

That would just create a lot of complexity issues so I don't see why it ain't that should be divested

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

1 minute ago, danlodish345 said:

That would just create a lot of complexity issues so I don't see why it ain't that should be divested

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

Who will buy it?

[danlodish345]

Who will buy it?

That's exactly my question who would buy the Spectrum.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

1 minute ago, danlodish345 said:

That's exactly my question who would buy the Spectrum.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

Dish might be interested in it but I doubt they can afford it. Between MFBI and new T-Mobile phones that support Band 25 it ceases to become a problem. New T-Mobile phones will be required to support the Sprint bands.

It's the same problem with Sprint phones and Band 66 and 71. New phones are required to support those bands. I think most phones on Sprint support Bands 2 and 4.

 

[danlodish345]

Dish might be interested in it but I doubt they can afford it. Between MFBI and new T-Mobile phones that support Band 25 it ceases to become a problem. New T-Mobile phones will be required to support the Sprint bands.
It's the same problem with Sprint phones and Band 66 and 71. New phones are required to support those bands. I think most phones on Sprint support Bands 2 and 4.
 

I think maybe as far back as 2015 or 2016 they are supporting bands 2 and 4

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

6 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

I think maybe as far back as 2015 or 2016 they are supporting bands 2 and 4

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

So I see the combined company new phones have to support Band 71, 12, 26, 25, 66, 41. Most new phones on Sprint support those bands except 71. I think only S9 supports 71on Sprint. I could be wrong thou.

The complicating factor would be all the different CA schemes. Yikes!!!

Edited May 7, 2018 by bigsnake49

[jordo]

I realize there are a number of opinions out there on this topic of the Sprint/T-Mobile merger.  If you happen to be one of us who are not in favor of it, here is a petition you should consider signing it and passing it along to your friends/family.

This is a petition on Whitehouse.gov that is requesting the FCC or DOJ block the proposed merger, you can read more below:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/urge-fcc-doj-block-sprintt-mobile-merger

Thanks,

Jordo

[Brynn0823]

I realize there are a number of opinions out there on this topic of the Sprint/T-Mobile merger.  If you happen to be one of us who are not in favor of it, here is a petition you should consider signing it and passing it along to your friends/family.
This is a petition on Whitehouse.gov that is requesting the FCC or DOJ block the proposed merger, you can read more below:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/urge-fcc-doj-block-sprintt-mobile-merger
Thanks,
Jordo

Sprint user here, just signed it. Let’s keep this going. I don’t want to be under T-Mobile and go from 4 carriers to 3


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueAngel]

1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

So I see the combined company new phones have to support Band 71, 12, 26, 25, 66, 41. Most new phones on Sprint support those bands except 71. I think only S9 supports 71on Sprint. I could be wrong thou.

The complicating factor would be all the different CA schemes. Yikes!!!

The S9 does indeed support all of the needed bands, however band 71 is not enabled on the Sprint variant which is odd but can be enabled through an updated software considering all of the S9 models in the US are the same.

[S4GRU]

1 hour ago, jordo said:

I realize there are a number of opinions out there on this topic of the Sprint/T-Mobile merger.  If you happen to be one of us who are not in favor of it, here is a petition you should consider signing it and passing it along to your friends/family.

This is a petition on Whitehouse.gov that is requesting the FCC or DOJ block the proposed merger, you can read more below:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/urge-fcc-doj-block-sprintt-mobile-merger

Thanks,

Jordo

 

I don't mind that we host a link to this on our site.  In general, I am not pro-merger.  But by the same token, we aren't looking to be be the hive of the resistance.  We may post some S4GRU Staff Editorials on the subject in the not too distant future.  But we don't want to be part of organized anti-merger activity.

 

Robert

[bigsnake49]

I have been pro merger for a while now for the following reasons:

1. Softbank did not invest in Sprint beyond the original buyout 

2. Sprint could not afford the LTE deployment on its own, much less 5G

3. Sprint could not project manage its way out of a plastic bag

DT has shown a willingness to invest in T-Mobile's network, the two networks will be become one so the 5G deployment costs will be shared and T-Mobile has shown that they are mean and lean and can get things done.

Edited May 8, 2018 by bigsnake49

[RedSpark]

4 hours ago, jordo said:

I realize there are a number of opinions out there on this topic of the Sprint/T-Mobile merger.  If you happen to be one of us who are not in favor of it, here is a petition you should consider signing it and passing it along to your friends/family.

This is a petition on Whitehouse.gov that is requesting the FCC or DOJ block the proposed merger, you can read more below:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/urge-fcc-doj-block-sprintt-mobile-merger

Thanks,

Jordo

I do share your sentiment and I don’t mean to be a buzzkill here... but this petition, even if it reaches the official threshold, may not get an official response beyond a “decline to comment” per the Terms and Conditons for “We The People”... and here’s why: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about

To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition. Where possible, we will notify signers of petitions whose content falls into these areas, in instances in which we don't feel we will be able to respond meaningfully.

_________

The White House will likely say this falls under the purview of other federal departments or agencies: FTC/FCC/DOJ, etc.