Jump to content

Mr.Nuke

S4GRU Staff
  • Content Count

    3,415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Mr.Nuke last won the day on May 14

Mr.Nuke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,347 Wireless Expert

About Mr.Nuke

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

19,664 profile views
  1. And that is where this potentially gets really complicated pending the agreement in place with them. I would be very surprised if they could just simply both go their own ways in the market as going concerns with any agreement still in effect. We know from the Shentel negotiations right now that with them there are basically 4 potential options: 1) Continue to be an affiliate 2) If an affilate agreement can't be worked out, T-Mobile has the option to purchase at a pre-agreed upon process price 3) If T-Mobile fails to exercise the purchase option Shentel has the option to purchase T-Mobile's network and subscribers in their service area 4) If no agreements on 1 through 3 are reached, T-Mobile has to walk away from Shentel's market. The terms may be slightly different with Swiftel, but I wouldn't be surprised if they very similar. If that is the case, it is quite possible they literally can't go their own ways very easily. This type of situation is what led to the affiliate lawsuits that led Sprint to buy nearly everyone out after the Nextel and to some extent Clearwire acquisitions. As an aside, this is also a market where Sprint only acquired any BRS/EBS very recently due to the SpeedConnect acquisition. And in the case, of Sioux City, new T-Mobile still does not have any BRS/EBS spectrum at all.
  2. Where is that coming from? It isn't accurate... And the T-Mobile AT&T situation isn't really analogous here at all. Correct. They're basically getting the best MVNO deal in the history of U.S. wireless, paying very favorable wholesale rates, but they're still paying.
  3. More often than not, that setting does very little other than the initial scan by the device and then the network puts the device where it wants it. T-Mobile from the start has said they don't want to degrade the network for customers on either side. Phasing out band 41 lte right now would be a serious degradation.There is more than enough BRS/EBS spectrum in most places especially in the near-term to allow Sprint customers to remain on 3 carrier band 41 LTE.
  4. I'll take that back a bit, because it also appears to me via ULS that Sprint/T-Mobile have the entire BRS in San Angelo as well...
  5. It looks like that in addition to SpeedConnect letting leases drop, a few months after this post Sprint outright took control of the BRS they had been leasing from SC as well as assuming the lease on the EBS A block that SpeedConnect had.
  6. Sprint T-Mobile has EBS in San Angelo. BRS and especially EBS is inherently messy for tracking, but I don't see anything that jumps out as inaccurate on those maps i.e. in the Concho Valley, Sprint not having any BRS is accurately reflected, etc.
  7. That would make sense. T-Mobile has a site at that intersection.
  8. You don't need to post this multiple times. This also doesn't appear to be a signal check pro issue. Those GCIs are consistent with valid T-Mobile GCIs in your area.
  9. Try going into the system app settings for SCP and under location permissions change it to allow all of the time. That seems to have resolved a similar issue for me on 3 XL.
  10. Well post merger, what Sprint in effect did was sell wireless equipment and spectrum to newly created Sprint subsidiaries and lease back equipment or spectrum to itself. The subsidiaries borrowed money by putting up the newly acquired equipment/spectrum as collateral. This allowed the subsidiaries to borrow at a substantially lower rate as their debt was secured by said collateral. Investors (including Softbank) bought bonds issued by the subsidiaries. The subsidiaries in turn leased equipment/spectrum back to Sprint and Sprint's lease payments to the subsidiaries are effectively paying the subsidiary's bondholders. So yes in the context to what you were asking, New T-Mobile is going to acquire some equipment/spectrum that is being leased via shell companies, but no the shell companies aren't owned by outsiders i.e. Softbank. And at that point, much like Sprint, T-Mobile will probably be fairly happy to continue lease payments given it is effectively debt payments at an extremely low rate. As of right now there are 3 outstanding Spectrum Co issues due in 2021, 2025, and 2028 totaling $6.125 billion. All 3 of these represent Sprint's lowest outstanding long-term debt issues interest rate wise. Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article107700387.html#storylink=cpy
  11. If a given Sprint tower would be giving T-Mobile users "extra coverage" odds are it is probably going to be kept post merger. Probably not in that sense... This is one area that they were fairly forthcoming the day the intent to merge was announced. The combined company is going to have approximately 110,000 macro sites at the time of the merger. 35,000 of these sites will ultimately be decommissioned either due to co-location or redundant coverage (not on the same tower, but close enough). These sites will almost certainly be predominantly Sprint sites; which makes sense because they're effectively being acquired and T-Mobile's management and network teams are going to be running the show. Like I said in the article at the time though in terms of co-location, In actuality we'll see what they do. All things equal, if two sites are co-located the greater synergies are in eliminating the tower rack with less favorable lease terms or worse rack location. But to circle back to your question, basically in your terms T-Mobile's network is the one getting what you are calling a "coverage and capacity audit." They'll fill their network with selected Sprint keep sites they've identified that will add coverage or capacity or both, plus an additional approximately 10,000 new macro sites in the first several years post-merger. I expect this process is probably quite far along on T-Mobile's end in terms of site identification as their numbers were pretty specific at the time of the merger and they've had an additional year plus to work on this.
  12. I believe your understanding is incorrect. Correct and it is 85%. If Softbank exceeds 85% ownership in Sprint a tender offer for the remaining 15% of the company is triggered. But what does this have to do with Softbank injecting money into Sprint? Softbank's initial acquisition of 70% Sprint was a $20.1 billion deal. $8 billion of that was a one time capital contribution to Sprint, the remaining $12.1 billion went to acquire 70% of the shares of Sprint. That $12.1 billion didn't go to Sprint at all, it went to institutional and individual shareholders. The $8 billion in capital isn't typical outside of an initial acquisition either... Subsequently they've raised their stake to somewhere in the 84% range. All of these subsequent transactions to increase their ownership stake have occurred on the open market as far as I know. Equity capital for the offering corporation only typically occurs once at the time of the initial offering i.e. Sprint went public offered stock on the market and got a one time payment at the time of the initial public offering. Any subsequent transactions on the stock market at that point are between the shareholder selling and the new potential shareholder wanting to buy. Softbank in and of itself buying 70% and now 84% of the company gave no money to Sprint. It went directly to the shareholder they bought it from. The "issue" that has apparently limited Softbank's ability to invest in Sprint is in the debt they took out to finance the deal, their Japanese banks included debt covenants restricting Softbank from infusing Sprint with any more capital than the initial $8 billion in the deal to acquire the majority of the company. https://www.wsj.com/articles/doubts-grow-about-whether-softbank-can-save-sprint-1439346616 Without actually seeing the covenants it is hard to know how restrictive they actually are and how much if it is simply unwillingness. Softbank has shown some creativity in the past in getting money to Sprint when they absolutely needed it. But again just to reiterate, the 85% ownership ceiling is a completely separate thing from investing money into the subsidiary.
  13. Sorry for being late to this and some of this is repeating New York. They have $7 billion in cash and just under $10 billion in liquid assets. I guess I read that differently than you do. From the investor update presentation they've basically got enough liquidity to pay off their debt for the next two years if they do nothing at all. What will happen is what has happened for years. You'll likely see Sprint offer new notes at some point this year that will replace the debt or expand it further. He isn't talking about a "massive restructuring of their debt" at all. He is talking about what Sprint has done in the past and will continue to do going forward. Sprint has roughly $4.3 billion in debt due this fiscal year. If they issue $4.3 billion in new debt ceteris paribus their debt and liquidity positions haven't changed. They aren't refinancing $40 billion in debt. As maturing debt is retired they are issuing new debt. The next 3 years that is $4 to $5 billion a year at a time. Presumably indefinitely as long as someone is willing to lend to them (which there is a finite point somewhere there), but especially in the current economic conditions Sprint didn't have any trouble getting money last year and actually up-sized an offering due to favorable interest. The Free Cash Flow thing is a little weird. As a customer, I'd prefer Sprint invests in their network, something they did up about 50% year-over-year. That spending is going to drive Free Cash Flow down. If they had spent about $1 billion less in Capex they would've been free cash flow positive, which again is meaningless to me as a customer. It also isn't a really compelling failing firm argument, which is part of the reason they're having trouble convincing the DOJ of their arguement here. T-Mobile hasn't been FCF positive* since 2015. *using Cash from operations less capital expenditures
×
×
  • Create New...