Jump to content

Mr.Nuke

S4GRU Staff
  • Content Count

    3,339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Mr.Nuke last won the day on December 26 2018

Mr.Nuke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,229 Wireless Expert

About Mr.Nuke

  • Rank
    S4GRU Moderator

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    Pixel 3 XL
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Omaha
  • Here for...
    4G Information

Recent Profile Visitors

18,996 profile views
  1. It isn't "locked". That phone could take any sim other than a Sprint MVNO right now. Ditto to the above. You aren't running into any issues because you aren't trying to switch between say Sprint and Ting or Sprint and Fi.
  2. Sprint keeps Pre-paid and Post-paid devices under separate labels in their device management database. Any device activated on Sprint post-paid service typically gets a SPCS (Sprint PCS) "flag"" in Sprint’s system. For whatever reason (I’d assume it is probably a relic of pre-byod days and when MVNOs had crap phone selections), devices that were active on Sprint post-paid cannot be taken to pre-paid without intervention. Project Fi is a pre-paid Sprint MVNO. What needs to happen here is the “flag” needs to be “flipped” from SPCS to PLBL (Private LaBeL). Either side here Project Fi or Sprint should be able to do this. The key is to finding someone that understands what they're doing. Edit: the device being Active on a Sprint post-paid account is probably complicating this further.
  3. If you are a Sprint post-paid customer in a band 41 area with separate high/low spectrum they'll give you one. There is minimal to no determination of deserving or not. The OP is posting from a verizon wireless IP. The only reason I can think of paying for one is if you are a pre-paid or MVNO customer where Sprint won't give you one. That said, dkyeager's comments apply. If the account holder goes away (and presumably they are if they're selling the device) Sprint is likely to deactivate the MB.
  4. This transaction has nothing to do with the merger. Sprint still needs to act in a manner that assumes the merger isn't going to pass. Leasing out EBS/BRS isn't conducive to that. This was an even market for market spectrum swap, just as we've seen Sprint engage in several times over the past couple of years with various companies. Where they can work out like for like even deals, it makes sense for Sprint or any other of the big 3 wireless companies to swap PCS so both companies ultimately end up with more contiguous spectrum. As to if the merger passes, T-Mobile has some options at their disposal to get people onto either network fairly quickly when the merger goes through if they choose to.
  5. T-Mobile has indeed said it will take 3 years to combine both networks. I want to say they said it was going to take 2 years to integrate Metro PCS and they reached that goal ahead of time. Within 6 weeks of the merger closing they were already migrating customers over to their HSPA+ and LTE networks via new and BYOD devices. Obviously the Sprint integration is going to be different for a number of reasons. That said when they say 3 years, I take that 3 years to have everyone completely moved over. I wouldn't be surprised if very early on in year 2 if "Sprint"s network isn't basically a thinned out 1x protection network for non VoLTE device stragglers. Assuming Sprint gets VoLTE going widespread (or T-Mobile has an implementation plan in Sprint's absence), they've got a lot of options for integrating Sprint customers at various paces. I find it hard to believe they'll run redundant sites though much less redundant networks a second longer than they need to. They've got a $$$ incentive to get Sprint customers onto their network as quickly as their network can handle it without disrupting their existing customers. But to circle back, so yeah they're going to add 10,000 sites and get rid of 35,000 redundant sites (presumably mostly Sprint sites given which team is calling the shots). That doesn't justify keeping two entirely separate network teams and keeping everyone of the employees on them. Even if you do that the workload is going to diminish fairly quickly once they get into it. Like any merger, despite what they're saying publicly here, there are going to be reductions in workforce. This is flat out one of the financial justifications for companies merging. In an ideal world you keep the best from both be it a network engineer to a retail manager. We'll see what happens.
  6. So the stock just happened to bounce on a day that Sprint posted better than expected financial results then (and where the merger by and large went fairly un-disscussed)? Okay... Churn and subscriber losses are something to watch, but near term they were over shined by one of Sprint's best financial quarters in a while. In August Saw said they were up up to about 2/3 of macro sites having all 3 bands. Yesterday they said 70%. If you assume they went from 65-70% and assume they have about 40,000 macro sites that is about 2,000 sites in 3 months. In August they said they had 15,000 total small cells deployed, 10,000 of them being strand mounts. Yesterday it was 21,000 with 15,000 being strand mounts.
  7. I don't know about that... T-Mobile is already known for being more efficient with their network teams with fewer people than Sprint. If you are on a field network team for Sprint, odds are T-Mobile already has their own team in the same area. The one thing that the network guys may have going for them is the combined company is planning on spending a lot of capex on the network early on. But fundamentally whether or not you are a network team member, an accountant, a call center worker, etc. Odds are there is a counterpart at T-Mobile; and odds are after a year or so the work-load in nearly every case is going to be a lot closer to that of either company alone than something that needs the majority of employees from both companies retained.
  8. I don't think you'll find any such stipulation in business combination agreement. I'm sure sure T-Mobile's pro-forma projections were based at a certain customer level and ARPU for Sprint when deciding what they were willing to pay, but that has been set. Furthermore, while important, I'd argue Sprint's customer base is secondary to its spectrum holdings.
  9. The speed test is from at least 11 hours before the screenshot notice the time difference between the system clock and the app clock.
  10. The speedtest.net server is a comcast server. The external IP in the screenshot is a Sprint IP address.
  11. Lets be clear the guidance is $5 to $6 billion per year over the next 3 years. That would breakdown to $1.25 billion to $1.5 billion per quarter, but I wouldn't be looking at it at that micro of a level. The fact that $1.1 is close enough to $1.2 though right now tells us guidance is holding fairly well right now. We'll revaluate that next quarter when we're half way through the year. No this is Sprint following its CapEx plans and assuming it may have to continue operating on its own if a merger fails to go through. The merger documents and terms are public. This was not part of it. Given new T-Mobile would be decommissioning 35,000 sites with most of them predominately being Sprint sites, it would actually be the exact opposite. If you were T-Mobile management in an ideal world you could tell Sprint where to dictate their $5 to $6 billion in spending i.e. keep sites. If not you'd probably prefer them not to be spending a bunch of money on equipment that you at the very least are going to end up having to pay to move and at the most that your going to throw away. You'd rather have Sprint target that $5 to $6 billion on debt reduction or ideally have it sitting there in cash for when you take over and can spend it right away as you see fit. Or we could all just realize the context of the comments and the FCC document they were made in. Sprint had no problem borrowing the $5 to $6 billion for this year. As long as lenders are willing to continue to lend them money at decent terms, as a company they're fine. Near term they're in ok shape. Longer term that becomes a bit more problematic.
×
×
  • Create New...