Jump to content

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread


Recommended Posts

  • 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

41 minutes ago, BlueAngel said:

Haven't tried that, should probably update my profile.

Try it for the heck of it. Also, as you said, run a profile update and PRL update.

Also switch between LTE recommended and Global if you have those options just for fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have CDMA, LTE / CDMA, GSM / UMTS and Automatic which it is set to. I just reset my phone after having the beta and installing the official pie update, perhaps something got messed up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have CDMA, LTE / CDMA, GSM / UMTS and Automatic which it is set to. I just reset my phone after having the beta and installing the official pie update, perhaps something got messed up.
That's why I don't mess around with beta software

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

That's why I don't mess around with beta software

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 

The beta was great, I just never updated the prl or profile after going to the stable firmware, and failed to update them again when I reset my device to stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The beta was great, I just never updated the prl or profile after going to the stable firmware, and failed to update them again when I reset my device to stock.
Noted. Also yes I prefer stable release software I have tried beta software over the years and the gist caused me nothing but problems. But hey I'm glad it worked out for you.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe him?

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/congress-challenges-t-mobile-sprint-merits-merger

While Claure said Sprint is “no longer in dire financial straits,” he told lawmakers the company cannot upgrade its network on its own because it lacks low-band spectrum and capital.

Claure testified that Sprint would need up to $25 billion to build a 5G network as a standalone company, and without positive cash flow the company would have to take on more debt and raise prices to pay off that debt.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Believe him?https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/congress-challenges-t-mobile-sprint-merits-merger

 

While Claure said Sprint is “no longer in dire financial straits,” he told lawmakers the company cannot upgrade its network on its own because it lacks low-band spectrum and capital.

Claure testified that Sprint would need up to $25 billion to build a 5G network as a standalone company, and without positive cash flow the company would have to take on more debt and raise prices to pay off that debt.

I watched the whole thing .. this was a easy win for sprint and TMO .. no real scrutiny or challenges presented . Question were very easy to answer.

As to Marcelo : yes, he right and I believe him .. sprint is still till this day spending billions on capex just to get the band 41 rollout completed (75%)... if no merger he said: “sprint will be a different company turn into a suburban/urban only carrier “

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 9:48 AM, danlodish345 said:

Hmm thats a solid argument which I wont disagree with but...in my area sprints density is terrible especially off of the main highway.. A new cell site or two is needed for sprint to fill in two roaming holes that are huge.....and the same could be said for tmobile with density...

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 

In my market there are several permits for new Sprint sites and one in progress.  These all address known holes or in one case an area lacking capacity.  My hope is they get done before a merger, as we may then need to live with them for several years until the market is actually converted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In my market there are several permits for new Sprint sites and one in progress.  These all address known holes or in one case an area lacking capacity.
Is your town also against cell sites?

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, danlodish345 said:

Is your town also against cell sites?

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 

Only one of the sites could possibly be considered NIMBY in the New Albany area of OH.  Then two in rural locations, two on city property.  In NIMBY areas with weaker coverage, several years ago Sprint turned down an 85ft tall site previously approved for a cell site by Upper Arlington city council.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Only one of the sites could possibly be considered NIMBY in the New Albany area of OH.  Then two in rural locations, two on city property.  In NIMBY areas with weaker coverage, several years ago Sprint turned down an 85ft tall site previously approved for a cell site by Upper Arlington city council.
Yes over here there's many of those nimbys so grid density here for all carriers unfortunately does suffer.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

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

if no merger he said: “sprint will be a different company turn into a suburban/urban only carrier “

I'm sorry, I just don't see this as a big problem.  Assuming they can line up good partners, like Shentel, I don't see why Sprint couldn't become a federation of smaller, local companies that each run their own little regions, but under the Sprint umbrella, the way Shentel does it.  Maybe people will tell me that partners didn't work out in the past, which raises the question of what makes Shentel so much better than the others, and how can it be replicated? 

- Trip

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, I just don't see this as a big problem.  Assuming they can line up good partners, like Shentel, I don't see why Sprint couldn't become a federation of smaller, local companies that each run their own little regions, but under the Sprint umbrella, the way Shentel does it.  Maybe people will tell me that partners didn't work out in the past, which raises the question of what makes Shentel so much better than the others, and how can it be replicated? 

- Trip

I agree! It’s what sprint should do and it could help them build in cities and then expand out if they so choose to do so

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

If the merger doesn't happen I'm switching right away, to whom I don't know yet. Will probably just bite the bullet and go Verizon and be done with it.

Sprint is good in my area, so I will likely stay until it deteriorates.  If the merger happens it will depend on what happens to my local Clear site.  Upgraded and not touched or improved I will remain,  demolished I will likely go with AT&T who has the next best signal - Verizon is the worst (but ranked the best in my market).

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Trip said:

I'm sorry, I just don't see this as a big problem.  Assuming they can line up good partners, like Shentel, I don't see why Sprint couldn't become a federation of smaller, local companies that each run their own little regions, but under the Sprint umbrella, the way Shentel does it.  Maybe people will tell me that partners didn't work out in the past, which raises the question of what makes Shentel so much better than the others, and how can it be replicated? 

- Trip

I think what Sprint sees is the cost of the Massive MIMO units.  Good numbers on their costs are hard to find, but one site upgrade permit has the costs at $151,000 total.  They will also have to upgrade PCS to 5G and band 26 is basically not upgradeable since it was reportedly pared back to below 10x10 (5G minimum bandwidth) for national security communication reasons.   With 600MHz using 5G and having HPUE, there is no reason why T-Mobile should not ultimately demolish Sprint's rural business.  If not merged, Sprint could become a T-Mobile vassal state over the life of 5G in rural areas. 

If they had a lot more cash and could of turned on 5G in the top 20 market's downtowns and other dense areas by March 8th, then they could win since they would have a six month window of large 5G coverage areas before 5G mid and low range becomes possible with the next Qualcomm chipset.

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

With 600MHz using 5G and having HPUE, there is no reason why T-Mobile should not ultimately demolish Sprint's rural business.  If not merged, Sprint could become a T-Mobile vassal state over the life of 5G in rural areas.

5G is marketing hype.  The key difference between 4G and 5G in the lower bands is essentially latency (not important for most use cases) and slightly better occupied bandwidth.  Speeds aren't markedly different from what I understand. 

T-Mobile's rural deployments are pretty bad.  I would know, I drive through some of them regularly.  Nobody who actually lives in those places would switch to it, because the towers are too far apart.  In those areas, Shentel beats the stuffing out of T-Mobile.  That's why I'm arguing in favor of having local entities manage the network in rural areas. 

- Trip

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Trip said:

5G is marketing hype.  The key difference between 4G and 5G in the lower bands is essentially latency (not important for most use cases) and slightly better occupied bandwidth.  Speeds aren't markedly different from what I understand.

I do agree that the rollout of 5G will be far slower than the pundits imply.  The 2x speed advantage of 5G will be gobbled up with 2 years at current data growth rates, which is the real reason for the push IMO (need for more capacity, installers say all the recent radios installed by the duo are 5G ready).  CDMA disappearing will be the real killer for Sprint given its vast coverage over rural areas.

At least for Sprint 5G will be added capacity to existing 4G (up to 60MHz more in many major metros with much faster uploads since it will be one carrier, 15MHz possible in many rural locations with only LTE 2500 CA currently).

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

I do agree that the rollout of 5G will be far slower than the pundits imply.  The 2x speed advantage of 5G will be gobbled up with 2 years at current data growth rates, which is the real reason for the push IMO (need for more capacity, installers say all the recent radios installed by the duo are 5G ready).  CDMA disappearing will be the real killer for Sprint given its vast coverage over rural areas.

At least for Sprint 5G will be added capacity to existing 4G (up to 60MHz more in many major metros with much faster uploads since it will be one carrier, 15MHz possible in many rural locations with only LTE 2500 CA currently).

No 2x capacity advantage for 5G over 4G over the same spectrum absent massive MIMO which can be used by both. Maybe 1.25x-1.5x? Now latency will be much lower for the tower to the handset portion of the network. Network slicing, virtualization, massive amounts of spectrum becoming available for 5G...

Edited by bigsnake49
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/carriers-struggle-to-make-business-case-for-5g

It seems that the carriers are having a hard time making a business case for 5G, given the massive infrastructure costs to upgrade to 5G. I still believe that hotspot duty in high traffic areas should be all that the operators should invest in with much slower adoption rate than 4G.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best business case I have seen for 5G so far: https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/tick-tock-or-why-5g-must-happen-soon-in-the-us/a/d-id/748918?

Typically seeding of handsets should occur first.  Not certain that Sprint will be ready on March 8th for the S10s, assuming the 5G model is actually released at that point. 

In the mmWave space, spectrum swapping needs to occur to bring the bandwidth per carrier used as high as possible (ideally 400Mhz).  Note that in AT&T's 5G stadium test in Arlington TX was likely done on 400MHz wide temporary spectrum.  Their regular 39MHz spectum is only 300MHz in scattered 50MHz segments, thus affecting upload speeds even with CA.

The best mmWave spectrum I have currently seen is 28MHz owned by T-Mobile in Ohio covering the three major cities plus most of the state. They own 850MHz of contiguous spectrum.  AT&T in Columbus has 100 + 50 +50 +100 + 50 +50.  Verizon is better at 50+100+150+50+100+150.  If you want to check you county go to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp and use radio service code UU.

It should also be noted that Sprint owns some mmWave spectrum in Alaska and leases some from other carriers in places like Chicago, presumably for Microwave use for Macro sites.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Claure is now crying that Sprint doesn't have low band spectrum to compete..... Well wasn't this the guy alone with his former CFO that said during many conferences earning calls that low band is the spectrum of the past. Sprint/Softbank colluded with Tmobile to allow them to buy most of the 600mhz band while they sat out. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NYC126 said:

So Claure is now crying that Sprint doesn't have low band spectrum to compete..... Well wasn't this the guy alone with his former CFO that said during many conferences earning calls that low band is the spectrum of the past. Sprint/Softbank colluded with Tmobile to allow them to buy most of the 600mhz band while they sat out. 

Sprint has not been active in the auctions due to cash flow, which was not initially admitted.  There is another auction that the FCC as starting talking about that is of far more importance to Sprint: 2.5GHz.  This would be primarily for rural areas but they would not have to do much to use it since they have been tribanding most of their sites.

10x10 is required for 5G.  I have been told that the plan with the Nextel purchase was to have at least 10x10 band 26, then 9/11 changed that when it became a national security issue to have first responders on the same frequency.  So Sprint got less LTE 800 in the end (this took a few years).  The consolation prize for Sprint was the 1900 G Block to fix the "interference" issues:  https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-04-168A1.pdf

  • Like 4
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

×
×
  • Create New...