SuzieTuesday

I've only scanned this article and the accompanying 33 page PDF but both seem quite interesting.

Internal T-Mobile documents show the company considering a Comcast merger

Title should perhaps have stated "was considering" as the report is from 2015...?

On 11/27/2019 at 3:10 PM, bigsnake49 said:

Since you made the claim and called me uninformed then back up your claim by proving that they were big cogs in all of those mergers.

Yeah nice try, I provided plenty of info to start with. It's clear to me you didn't read it. I'm not gonna waste any more  of my time.

So how about answering this question.

You made the assertion, "The fact is, the states' "anti-trust" case has no legal merit, because anti-trust is under the exclusive purview of the Department of Justice..."

If your assertion is true why isn't the merger proceeding? I mean according to BS49 state AGs have no legal merit and the DOJ has exclusive purview.  What are they waiting for?  I mean lets merge - BS49 says it's A-OK.

4 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

...  So what exactly did the SAGs accomplish? A big fat nothing! ...

Frankly that question and statement illustrate that you're likely uninformed regarding what state AGs do and have done, not only in the 3 cases referenced but in 100's if not 1000's of others. The info is out there it just requires some time and effort to discover.

48 minutes ago, tommym65 said:

The fact is, the states' "anti-trust" case has no legal merit, because anti-trust is under the exclusive purview of the Department of Justice...

This is simply not true. State attorneys general can play an important role in antitrust enforcement on matters of particular concern to local businesses or consumers. States AGs actually have quite a rich history in antitrust. State Attorneys General often investigate antitrust violations – ranging from price fixing to anticompetitive mergers – in conjunction with the federal antitrust enforcement agencies (the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission).  But recently the nation’s AGs have more frequently taken the lead, conducting their own investigations and initiating independent enforcement actions.

They went after the AT&T / T-Mobile merger in 2011, Verizon / Alltel in 2008, AT&T /Cingular in 2004 for example.

More supporting evidence:

Over the past year, State Attorneys General have stepped into what they describe as a void of antitrust enforcement at the federal level.  AGs have commenced investigations and brought antitrust actions across industry segments, including financial services, healthcare, telecommunications, technology and others.  The substance of the actions cover the waterfront of antitrust including price-fixing, merger enforcement and unfair trade practices. 

4 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Haha! Google is the king of abandonware.

True dat!  And in case there was any doubt it's always amusing to browse this list: https://killedbygoogle.com/

I'm starting to think Delrahim doesn't want to be in the unpleasant position of saying yes or no to this deal. To this end he (and the DOJ?) are imposing increasingly onerous concessions in hopes that T-Mobile / Deutsch Telekom eventually opts to walk away.

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

You kind of have to put on your common sense hat.

Hey I've got this nifty solution for easing the transition from 4G to 5G it's called DSS. The only bad news is that all of your existing customers who have 4G phones well... they won't work, they all have to be upgraded to be DSS compatible.

Yeah obviously that's a non-starter.

The beauty of DSS is that it works with existing LTE phones.

53 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

1. Each hardware manufacturer will have to come up with their own DSS implementation since Ericsson's DSS only works on Ericsson hardware meaning that only portions of networks using Ericsson equipment will be able to utilize it for now.

Yep absolutely true.

53 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

Additionally, I'm doubtful that Steve Scarlett is trying to spread FUD about it considering it would be in their best interest to implement it as well for their hardware, he's just being realistic about the drawbacks of it.

Oh believe me he's doing both, adding a bit of FUD and pointing out pitfalls. No question at all that Nokia will implement DSS.

53 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

3. I don't see anywhere that they used an "off the shelf 4G smartphone" for their test. Their press release says they used an Intel 5G device at MWC.

"The live demo will use a 4G and 5G capable radio from Ericsson Radio System, Intel’s 5G Mobile Trial Platform  and a commercial 4G smartphone."

https://www.ericsson.com/en/press-releases/2019/2/ericsson-and-intel-to-show-live-demo-of-4g--5g-dynamic-spectrum-sharing-at-mwc-2019

This point is stressed numerous times in videos of this and several other DSS demos. I don't have time to do the leg work for you, but Google should be able to help.

53 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

DSS is merely a stopgap until carriers can get fresh mid-band spectrum to deploy 5G on or shut down their LTE networks completely in favor of 5G-NR.

Yes! Again the beauty is that DSS allows mobile operators to use existing spectrum for both 4G and 5G at the same time. A much better solution than having to try to decide how to divide spectrum between 4G and 5G as was required in most every other transition from xG to (x+1)G.

Sorry for giving DSS a life of it's own in this thread, I yield my time to Sprint Tmobile merger Disc. 😀

8 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

Steve Scarlett, head of technology for Verizon customer business at Nokia, said that the timing of DSS deployment really depends upon the availability of 5G handsets that have the spectrum sharing capability because existing LTE handsets won’t be able to take advantage of the network upgrade, and operators need to be careful so DSS doesn’t impact existing LTE customers. “There are timing signals in LTE that can’t be messed with,” Scarlett said.

Thanks. First thing to note is that Steve Scarlett works for Nokia. Ericsson has been the market leader re: DSS. So I'm not surprised he's spreading a bit of FUD.

I've read that paragraph several times and am still not sure what he's trying to say.

"...depends upon the availability of 5G handsets that have the spectrum sharing capability..."  No surprise.

"...because existing LTE handsets won’t be able to take advantage of the network upgrade..." What network upgrade, 5G, of course not.

Any way there's more to this story, I don't have time search at the moment but the DSS demo at MWC 2019 was done with a commercial off the shelf 4g smartphone. I mean that's the whole point.

8 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

Spectrum Sharing also requires compatible devices on the handset side

Do you have a link/reference to verify this statement? From what I recall a core requirement of 5GNR was interoperability with legacy LTE UE.

33 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

Oh, that.  C Band is 4-8GHz.  That 3.7-4GHz portion is in the S Band.  I know that 3.7-4.2 is being called C Band atm (maybe cause they are looking at making the 200MHz free from 4-4.2GHz?), but with the recent FCC wanting to make open 1.2GHz in C Band (5925-7125MHz), that is what I was thinking.

That would make things interesting.  Finding a quick article, sat companies said it would take 18-36months to move though. This will happen after the FCC makes a decision, holds an auction and then tells the sat companies to move.  So if this spectrum does go through, it'll be a long time before it can be used. 

Without being a fly on the wall where lobbying is going on it's hard to know for sure. But yeah no way it's gonna be available tomorrow. There does seem to be some support for allowing C-band satellite operators to bypass the FCC/auction process and sell spectrum directly to mobile operators. This would likely be the most expedient route, but on the surface seems chaotic to me.

16 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

That advantage of having so much BRS/EBS, they can turn large amounts of 5G without refarming spectrum.

Presumably refarming is a thing of the past due to Dynamic Spectrum Sharing.

"This technology essentially will allow 4G and 5G users to take turns using the exact same chunk of spectrum. Initially, the line of 4G users will be much longer, so they'll take most of the turns. But as the number of 5G users grows, they'll take an increasing number of turns using a given chunk of spectrum."

46 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

C-band is further from becoming a reality than CBRS is right now considering there still hasn't been a decision made about if satellite operators should be able to sell it or if it should be auctioned off. And even then, it'll probably cost an arm and a leg to acquire.

Yep certainly neither is going to happen tomorrow, and yeah valuable spectrum is expensive. However these are just details that will get hammered out.

53 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

CBRS is shared spectrum that will likely be split up into a ton of chunks which doesn't exactly make it pristine mid-band spectrum.

Well yeah CBRS is a different animal, and although there is an existing structure for 3 levels of access, Incumbents, PALS, and GAA there is certainly lobbying going on to make PALS more favorable for LTE/5G usage. However "a ton of chunks" obviously just my opinion but highly doubt it.

1 hour ago, Paynefanbro said:

Sprint's advantage is that 2.5GHz not only has better propagation characteristics, but that the whole 120MHz+ is available to them virtually nationwide. The main advantage of CBRS is that it will likely be the first "global" 5G band and will be useful for roaming purposes. For that reason, I could see Sprint along with every other carrier and cable co trying to get some of it.

Again there is NO question regarding the value of Sprint's B41 holdings. While global roaming is a convenience I don't see it as the main advantage of CBRS. Today global roaming is enabled by vendors ability to shoe horn many bands into a phone. I suspect this will happen for 5G too.

Finally lets not forget the mid-band spectrum Dish is essentially sitting on. This expires in roughly 10 months, 11 days...😀

7 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

Then C-Band that is being looked into like 6GHz...

Nope. C-Band: 3.7 to 4.2 GHz

11 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Here’s what Verizon had to say about Millimeter Wave: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/millimeter-wave-5g-isnt-for-widespread-coverage-verizon-admits/

Given all these shortcomings, Sprint should be in the driver’s seat with 2.5 GHz if it could make the appropriate capex happen.

The intent of my post was simply to point out the "two voices" of N Ray. For Verizon mmWave is bad, for TMUS it's good.

Not sure how often it needs to be repeated until people are no longer surprised by the characteristics of mmW spectrum.

Certainly Sprints 2.5 GHz spectrum is enviable at the moment. C-Band and/or CBRS if and when available will certainly tend to reduce or even eliminate Sprints advantage.

9 minutes ago, Flompholph said:

Not sure how mmWave being blocked is surprising. 60 Ghz wifi is blocked by human hand. That does not mean there is not a place for mmWave. Cars, fixed internet, large open spaces (like stadiums, parking, or parks), or indoor das (like airports or expos).

Not to get to far off topic but I agree 100%, mmWave certainly has a place. Who knows how well it will ultimately perform but the short wave lengths make massive MIMO and beam forming/steering a reality. The next several years will be interesting.

15 minutes ago, clbowens said:

Well to be fair, he didn't say anything about coverage or how the spectrum penetrates walls.  🙂  It's worded very well.

Ah yes worded like some one who just completed John Legere's short course, "Technical Writing for Snake Oil Salesmen". 😀

1 hour ago, nexgencpu said:

This Gif though..

mmWave 

Maybe in a world without walls mmWave would be a thing.

Yet Neville Ray says, "T-Mobile also has mmWave spectrum that provides massive capacity over a very small footprint. It holds big promise for speed and capacity in dense urban areas and venues where large numbers of people gather."  I guess TMUS has special mmWave spectrum that is some how superior to VZ mmWave spectrum.

4 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

Aren't penthouses rented?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

T-Mobile CEO John Legere is selling his luxury New York City penthouse, located in the exclusive Central Park West neighborhood, for nearly $18 million.

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

Anyone in the market for Masa’s house?

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2018/11/14/masayoshi-son-marcelo-claure-mission-hills-mansion.html

He must be pretty confident the merger is going to go through if he’s listing it. Same for Marcelo.

Legere put his NYC penthouse up for sale about a week ago. Guess they're all movin' on up!

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/04/t-mobiles-john-legere-is-selling-18m-penthouse-heres-a-look-inside.html

Sprint Corp. and T-Mobile US Inc. have rekindled merger talks, people familiar with the matter said, as the wireless rivals explore a combination for the third time in four years.

The latest discussions come just five months after a previous courtship collapsed largely over who would control the combined firm. The talks also come in the midst of an antitrust fight between the U.S. government and AT&T Inc.

It is unclear what terms the two sides are considering, and it is possible, as before, that they could fail to reach an agreement. The latest discussions are at a preliminary stage, the people said.

The talks are complicated by the ownership of the two firms. Japanese telecom giant SoftBank Group Corp. owns nearly 85% of Sprint. Germany’s Deutsche Telekom AG controls T-Mobile, which is the larger company both in terms of subscribers and market value.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sprint-t-mobile-restart-deal-talks-once-again-1523378376?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

1 hour ago, Paynefanbro said:

... it offers international talk, text, and 256kbps data internationally at $10/GB ...

Just a minor correction, international data is full 3G or LTE speed depending upon what's available in country, NOT 256 Kbps. That changed roughly 18 months ago.  https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/12/googles-project-fi-high-speed-international-pokemon/

Latest press from Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-06/sprint-t-mobile-are-said-to-be-ironing-out-final-deal-details

How this effects the outcome of the T-Mobile / Sprint merger is anyone's guess, but the FCC recently determined that the U.S. Wireless Industry is finally competitive.

Quote

Some say the finding could spur merger activity while others say the FCC may want to maintain competition in the sector

Competition has officially returned to the U.S. wireless sector.

For the first time since 2009, the Federal Communications Commission has concluded there is "effective competition"
in the U.S. wireless market.

The agency is required by law to conduct an economic analysis of the sector. Starting in 2010, after years of major consolidation...

Can't post the whole article since it requires a subscription but it does say that the full (121 page) report will be voted on by FCC commissioners on Sep 26 before it's released.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-wireless-industry-is-finally-competitive-fcc-says-1505145979

11 minutes ago, S4GRU said:

Oh gosh, not this again.  I am more against this than I was before.  Tmo and Sprint are getting more competitive and gaining market share against the Duopoly.  Verizon is on their feet, having to actually compete.  The wireless market has never been better for the American consumer.  I'm willing to sit back and see what comes of this, as twospirits recommends, but I think the status quo is right where we need to be nationally with wireless.  The path forward looks good for Tmo and Sprint.

 

Prices will go up if they are allowed to merge.  They are trying to do it now.  It is the 4th competitor, the odd duck out, that pressures the market.  Three roughly equal sized competitors just won't pressure much.  Mark my words!

Agree 1000% re prices going up. 

Odd thing is that Verizon and AT&T stock prices spiked up on this news.  I'd bet $10 that the reason for this is that Wall Street also sees the end of, or at least a reduction in price competition if the merger is allowed.