Jump to content

Official Tmobile-Sprint merger discussion thread


Recommended Posts

We need to post the links for these filings and see what they say.
 

The deal is in trouble from a What I’m ready and understanding.. the change of direction hasn’t worked for TMO.. It’s the 3rd change of direction. First it was 5G, then it was better able to compete with VZW and AT&T, now it’s we’ll challenge cable.
This is John and team throwing a Hail Mary trying to save the deal playing the long game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
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

1 hour ago, dkyeager said:

We need to post the links for these filings and see what they say.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/7/18254853/tmobile-sprint-merger-5g-home-internet-service-promises

https://www.t-mobile.com/news/new-t-mobile-fixed-broadband-alternative

The filing link in the article doesn’t load. 🙁

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The change of direction competing against cable the FCC/DOj are already aware that as a merged company they wanna compete on home broadband .. this stoppage is concerning it was unexpected


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the EBS/BRS spectrum partition an issue in NR deployments, or are they able to gather these disparate blocks into an 60MHz carrier like we have been hearing will be deployed? Is time division in NR a solution to the blocks being '16.5MHz down at this end and 6.5MHz up at this end but look out for that other leased block in the middle' scenario? I don't know if it relevant to NR as a tech but I wonder how it will work.

We just curious about how some of these blocks get aggremugathered together in the new airlink. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, belusnecropolis said:

Is the EBS/BRS spectrum partition an issue in NR deployments, or are they able to gather these disparate blocks into an 60MHz carrier like we have been hearing will be deployed? Is time division in NR a solution to the blocks being '16.5MHz down at this end and 6.5MHz up at this end but look out for that other leased block in the middle' scenario? I don't know if it relevant to NR as a tech but I wonder how it will work.

We just curious about how some of these blocks get aggremugathered together in the new airlink. Thanks!

In areas where Sprint controls all the 2.5 spectrum you end up with 3 carriers, buffer, 2 carriers, buffer, 3 carriers.  The FCC can allow access to these buffer zones (J &K).  With 194 MHz you could get 9 20Mhz carriers and a 10Mhz carrier.  However Sprint 4G LTE B41 carriers are actually 19.8MHz wide, would give you 9 carriers plus 15.8MHz for possible a 15Mhz carrier.  We don't fully understand how 5G will handle spectrum allocations.   It may be more oriented toward 15MHz.  If so,  in many areas you could end up with 40MHz for 4G LTE (CA) plus 15MHz for 5G.

To truly pull off wireless internet in rural areas, the allocation/auction of the remain 2.5 spectrum would be needed.  It is not guaranteed that Sprint would win.  If it does not have to be leased, Verizon may be interested.  AT&T has already played the spoiler in places like San Francisco.  You also have a number of WISPs already present and various spectrum hoarders.

 

 

6 hours ago, RedSpark said:

It says access denied.  I went and looked at the FCC docket and no other documents yet made public other than announcement.  I prefer not to trust the uneducated press on wireless matters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It usually takes ECFS a day or two to make public things that are filed.  I'm not sure why T-Mobile included a link that didn't work yet in their press release, but it may well start working later today.

Here's the FCC PN announcing the clock stoppage:  https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-161A1.pdf

This appears to be the February 22 document:  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/102221766502159/Feb 21 Public Ex Parte.pdf

I do not see the March 6 filing yet.

- Trip

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tyroned3222 said:


The change of direction competing against cable the FCC/DOj are already aware that as a merged company they wanna compete on home broadband .. this stoppage is concerning it was unexpected


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

T-Mobile has touted the fixed broadband angle before, nothing new. They probably submitted a lot of deployment details in their filings which prompted the FCC to stop the clock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2019 at 5:50 AM, tommym65 said:

Actually, it is a real issue. While presidents are not supposed to be involved in merger approvals, this one has already (so far unsuccessfully) tried to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger (for apparently personal reasons), and who can predict where he will go next. 

That doesn't make any sense and you are confusing what you see in the media with reality. The DOJ under Obama stared the process of stoping the Time warner/ATT merger. The Trump admin merely continued this policy.   Your paraniod and basely claims are why we can't have nice things on the internet. 

 

Unless, you have proof Trump personally  intervened in this case? I mean I doubt a random person on the internet does but you never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

That doesn't make any sense and you are confusing what you see in the media with reality. The DOJ under Obama stared the process of stoping the Time warner/ATT merger. The Trump admin merely continued this policy.   Your paraniod and basely claims are why we can't have nice things on the internet. 

Unless, you have proof Trump personally  intervened in this case? I mean I doubt a random person on the internet does but you never know.

1. I recognize the site rules regarding political discussion.  This political topic is directly relevant to the pending Sprint/T-Mobile merger.

2. The previous administration was known to be broadly opposed to large corporate mergers, including AT&T/Time Warner, a fact well known and not germane to this discussion.

3. The reality is: Many sources (including, but not limited to: The New Yorker, The Washington Post, Market Watch, Slate, CNN, PolitiFact, NBC News, Politico . . .) have reported that the President personally instructed Gary Cohn, formerly director of the National Economic Council, to contact officials at the Department of Justice to attemp to intervene in the merger, reportedly because of the President's extreme antipathy toward CNN.

4. The US House of Representatives is reportedly investigating this interference, which certainly lends credance to the whole story..

No, I don't have "proof".  My "paranoid and basely claims" (I can only assume you meant "baseless") are, in fact, neither paranoid nor baseless, but are widely substantiated.  Moreover, insulting me, however vaguely you do so, is inappropriate on this forum.

  • Like 3
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tommym65 said:

1. I recognize the site rules regarding political discussion.  This political topic is directly relevant to the pending Sprint/T-Mobile merger.

2. The previous administration was known to be broadly opposed to large corporate mergers, including AT&T/Time Warner, a fact well known and not germane to this discussion.

3. The reality is: Many sources (including, but not limited to: The New Yorker, The Washington Post, Market Watch, Slate, CNN, PolitiFact, NBC News, Politico . . .) have reported that the President personally instructed Gary Cohn, formerly director of the National Economic Council, to contact officials at the Department of Justice to attemp to intervene in the merger, reportedly because of the President's extreme antipathy toward CNN.

4. The US House of Representatives is reportedly investigating this interference, which certainly lends credance to the whole story..

No, I don't have "proof".  My "paranoid and basely claims" (I can only assume you meant "baseless") are, in fact, neither paranoid nor baseless, but are widely substantiated.  Moreover, insulting me, however vaguely you do so, is inappropriate on this forum.

So a justice department under obama started an anti-trust investigation because trump wanted it? Weird.

Did i hurt you feels, i am sorry but grow up. You are making wild and dumb claims. Both Dems and Rs are for and against this merger and two admins tried to stop it and you want to blame Trump because "orange man bad". Any insults you feel you earned. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

So a justice department under obama started an anti-trust investigation because trump wanted it? Weird.

Did i hurt you feels, i am sorry but grow up. You are making wild and dumb claims. Both Dems and Rs are for and against this merger and two admins tried to stop it and you want to blame Trump because "orange man bad". Any insults you feel you earned. 

That is not what I said, and you know perfectly well that it is not what I said. 

Do not pretend to know what my politics or my motivation are, and do not put words in my mouth that I have not said. 

You are obviously spoiling for a fight. Cut the shit, learn to read what other people actually say, and try to be at least a little respectful. 

"Did i hurt you feels?" Really? Why, I'm asking myself, am I even bothering to react? 

Edited by tommym65
To remove offensive content
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 11:51 PM, tyroned3222 said:


this stoppage is concerning it was unexpected


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It actually isn't concerning or unexpected since the stoppage was expected by all parties. New fillings were submitted by T-Mobile/Sprint. It is all part of the process. 

This merger is still likely going to happen. Some people in power will question it in order to toot their horn (it's politics 101), but will ultimately not stand in the way.

Edited by greenbastard
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
It actually isn't concerning or unexpected since the stoppage was expected by all parties. New fillings were submitted by T-Mobile/Sprint. It is all part of the process. 

This merger is still likely going to happen. Some people in power will question it in order to toot their horn (it's politics 101), but will ultimately not stand in the way.

 

New info was submitted because the direction they were taking wasn’t working ..

1st: pushing the narrative of lower pricing didn’t seem to work

2nd: first to 5G race didn’t seem to work

3rd: better competition against att and Verizon didn’t seem to work

Now the direction is going towards cable ( briefly mentioned to all in prior meetings. So everyone is aware) but now in more detail. So, to me it is concerning

 

Remember this was supposed to be all smooth and about 30 days or so away from being ether approved or not.. so, this change of direction leads me to believe tmo is getting negative reactions from DOj

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it could be the DOJ and FCC drilling further into the data and scenarios.

There  is a disconnect between the policies of the current administration and the bureaucratic responses.  Global warming is a good example of this. This adds unpredictability to how this proposed merger will be resolved.  Logically you would think if they don't allow T-Mobile and Sprint to merge then AT&T and Verizon should be broken up.  I sincerely doubt the later would happen.

I am also not certain that T-Mobile or Sprint are that politically aware either, given these multiple public revisions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehhh, I don't think the rougher waters is not technical in nature.  It started when some Democratic lawmakers started to speak negatively.  Their friends on the bureaucratic side are starting to explore their concerns.  That's my theory.  It was all but approved until the publicly made negative comments started.

Robert

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments on https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10308962711593/(Public) In-Home Ex Parte with CL - FINAL v2.pdf

1) I do see an issue in entering the address for qualification -- many rural addresses are P.O. Boxes or rural routes not pinned down to a lat long.

2) They guarantee a  "minimum speed of 25/3Mbps".  Much lower speeds would be likely acceptable by the customers, especially if they could use satellite for download.

3) let us not forget that SpaceX and others have also targeted these customers in future years.

4) It will be restricted in area: "T-Mobile’s network engineers ... calculated the areas within the In-Home Broadband Coverage Area where sufficient network capacity existed to offer in-home broadband services (the In-Home Broadband Eligible Area”)"

5) "While many of these areas need some 2.5 GHz to be deployed in order to provide sufficient capacity to meet New T-Mobile’s performance thresholds, traffic in these areas would end up putting very little load on  the 2.5 GHz spectrum, leaving much of it available to provide wireless fixed broadband service. The result is that New T-Mobile will gain substantial excess capacity in a number of areas for a very low cost."

The issues with this are many:  1) Many rural areas don't currently have much in the way of 2.5 spectrum.  2) WISPs may already be operating in the area, but possibly with less technical expertise.  3) Sprint users may already have heavily taxed this resource.

6) there is no discussion of the priority of mobile versus fixed wireless customers.  They do discuss limiting the number of wireless customers in a given area in a technical appendix.

7) It would give the new T-Mobile more revenue in some rural areas that would otherwise not be worth serving.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, S4GRU said:

Ehhh, I don't think the rougher waters is not technical in nature.  It started when some Democratic lawmakers started to speak negatively.  Their friends on the bureaucratic side are starting to explore their concerns.  That's my theory.  It was all but approved until the publicly made negative comments started.

Robert

I agree with Robert.  Typically, Democrats tend to focus on helping the little guy.  And with this merger, which ironically I want to happen for Sprints sake-It's going to fuc* all of us in the long term tho.

Now the D's are grabbing on to that platform . I can see some trouble for the merger.  I guess we'll just see what happens.  

Giving back to what I said a few weeks ago. About TMobile team staying @ Trump's place of business is smart. They wash his back. He washes their back.  Pay for play my friends.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the longer this takes and the more they review... the more the opposition comes out.   I wish they'd hurry the heck up!   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, runagun said:

I agree with Robert.  Typically, Democrats tend to focus on helping the little guy.  And with this merger, which ironically I want to happen for Sprints sake-It's going to fuc* all of us in the long term tho.

Now the D's are grabbing on to that platform . I can see some trouble for the merger.  I guess we'll just see what happens.  

Giving back to what I said a few weeks ago. About TMobile team staying @ Trump's place of business is smart. They wash his back. He washes their back.  Pay for play my friends.  

Just remember that Congress has no say in this merger, the administration does. I mean they can talk but they don't get to approve or turn down the merger.

The fault for stopping the clock lies with T-Mobile and to a lesser degree with Sprint. They keep on adding documentation to support their case which then prompts the FCC to stop the clock for public comment. In the end the public comments don't really make a bit of difference. The professionals at the FCC and DOJ have to cross their t's and dot their i's in support of or in opposition to the merger.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 11:04 PM, runagun said:

I agree with Robert.  Typically, Democrats tend to focus on helping the little guy.  And with this merger, which ironically I want to happen for Sprints sake-It's going to fuc* all of us in the long term tho.

Now the D's are grabbing on to that platform . I can see some trouble for the merger.  I guess we'll just see what happens.  

Giving back to what I said a few weeks ago. About TMobile team staying @ Trump's place of business is smart. They wash his back. He washes their back.  Pay for play my friends.  

Why would you think Dems. Are for the "little guy"? Why are we F... In the long run if the merger goes through? What do you think would happen if we get to three carriers though bankruptcy and VZW and ATT snatch up most of Sprint's spectrum? What does the industry look like then? Are we not F with two strong players and a weak third? 

Dems raise more money from billionaires than Rs, seem weird they are for the little guy or weird that stoping this merger would un F us. 

 

If you want to have a understanding of the world that explains more of reality that Dems are for the little guy and Rs are for the rich you might want to think about the fact that both parties need money and get most of their money from billionaires. Once you do that you can ask which billionaires give to which parties and that leads you the fact that telecom tends to spend more with Rs and content (like google) spend more on Ds. This way of viewing the world allows one to understand why each party takes the position it does much better that D are draped in light and good and Rs are the exploiters. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no moderator here officially, but I've served as one on many other sites, both private and commercial/for profit, and just want to underscore for you guys continuing this:  both Robert and other mods have warned you, and yet you're continuing the political-based discussion. 

Just to interject a friendly alternative suggestion before one of them comes in here and acts on that timeout threat - you could just as easily continue these back-and-forth arguments directly via private messaging, which the site supports.  It's your choice whether or not to do that, but you can continue as you are, or have that choice forced on you the hard way.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going off topic a bit, the merger that I wished would've happened a long time ago is MetroPCS and U.S. Cellular. Their networks would've complimented each other so well and they would've been a decent 5th nationwide carrier with a combined 14 Million customers. 

  • Like 6
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 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...