Jump to content

Mr.Nuke

S4GRU Staff
  • Content Count

    3,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by Mr.Nuke

  1. Mr.Nuke

    Unlocking Pixel

    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. Mr.Nuke

    Unlocking Pixel

    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. Mr.Nuke

    Official Magic Box discussion thread

    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. Mr.Nuke

    We Welcome Our New Magenta Overlords?

    Seth GoodwinSprint 4G Rollout UpdatesMonday, April 30, 2018 - 5:00 PM PDT After three previous attempts during the past four years, something many thought may never happen actually did. On Sunday April 29, T-Mobile announced they were effectively acquiring Sprint in an all stock deal, combining the third and fourth largest carriers in the U.S. wireless market. Pending regulatory approval, the merger is targeted for closing in the first half of 2019. The Deal The deal using an exchange ratio of 0.10256 Sprint shares for each T-Mobile share valued Sprint at approximately $26.5 billion (plus the assumption of Sprint’s $30+ billion in debt) or $6.62 per share using T-Mobile’s Friday closing price of $64.52. The combined company “New T-Mobile” will be owned 41.7% by Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile's parent company. 27.4% of the company will be owned by Sprint's parent company SoftBank, with the remaining 30.9% owned by the general public and institutional investors. According to terms of the deal announced by both companies in a joint press release, the combined T-Mobile will retain two headquarters in Bellevue, Washington and Overland Park, Kansas. Current T-Mobile CEO John Legere will retain that role at the new company. T-Mobile’s Mike Sievert will serve as President and COO. No Sprint executives were announced to the management team at this time. Deutsche Telekom's Timotheus Höttges will serve as chairman of the company's board of directors, and DT will have 9 seats on the board compared to SoftBank's 4. Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure, and SoftBank Chairman and CEO Masayoshi Son will occupy two of SoftBank’s seats. As opposed to the famous T-Mobile/AT&T attempted tie up several years ago, this deal does not include a breakup fee should the merger fail to pass regulatory approval. Rather, Sprint has independently signed a roaming agreement with T-Mobile for four years that will continue regardless of the outcome of the merger. On the analyst call for the merger announcement Marcelo Claure said this would take effect immediately. As of the time this article was published, specific details pertaining to the roaming agreement and any actual known roaming connections have yet to materialize. The Plan Sprint and T-Mobile will continue operating separately until the conclusion of the merger, something that in and of itself raises multiple questions about this coming year. Hopefully we'll gain some more insights with Sprint's upcoming FY 2017/4th quarter earnings call. Assuming approval, the companies announced that they intend on spending up to $40 billion in the first three years on capital expenditures and consolidating operations into a single entity. According to the press release, this represents almost 50% more than what Sprint and T-Mobile combined had spent over the past three years. At the time of closing, the companies estimate that Sprint and T-Mobile will have approximately 110,000 macro cell towers. Of these, around 35,000 will be decommissioned due to co-location or other redundancies. 10,000 new sites will be added leaving New T-Mobile with approximately 85,000 macro sites. Within the first three years of a combined company it is also estimated that the carrier will have over 50,000 small cells independent of magic boxes. The two carriers currently have around 10,000 combined. The stated plan is to “use T-Mobile as the anchor network” and use selected Sprint “keep” sites to add coverage and density. At a minimum, Sprint’s BRS/EBS 2.5 GHz spectrum will be added to T-Mobile’s sites and T-Mobile’s “full spectrum portfolio” will be deployed on Sprint’s “keep” sites. At face value, this would point toward mainly decommissioning Sprint sites as part of the 35,000-macro site reduction. In actuality we'll see what they do. For example 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. VoLTE and Two-dot-Five The conference call noted while the goal is to migrate Sprint's CDMA customers to VoLTE as soon as possible, with 20 million Sprint customers having T-Mobile compatible handsets on day one. The intention is to have the total migration to T-Mobile completed over a three-year period without “degrading experience on Sprint’s network.” This suggests at a minimum keeping Sprint’s 1x800 voice service active during the transition as well as a deliberate coordinated process for overall decommissioning of macro sites. The other thing to watch going forward in this area is that T-Mobile makes no mention in their investor presentation toward utilizing anything other than Sprint’s 2.5 spectrum on their sites. A Sprint T-Mobile merger would create a spectrum behemoth with holdings ranging from T-Mobile’s low band 600 MHz for building penetration and rural coverage all the way through Sprint’s 2.5 GHz for capacity and speed. On Sunday, executives announced they have no intention of divesting any spectrum. However, questions remain on issues like what does a company that already possesses 600 MHz and 700 MHz LTE spectrum do with 800 MHz? How do T-Mobile and Sprint independently spend CapEx this year without diminishing merger synergies? We at S4GRU plan on potentially analyzing a combined company’s significant aggregate spectrum situation in a separate article at a later date. According to the investor information provided, the combined company is estimated to have run rate cost synergies in excess of $6 billion annually or on a net present value basis in excess of $43 billion. $26 billion NPV or $4 billion annually of these annual savings would be derived from network consolidation and CapEx synergies. Additional savings could come from consolidation of operations including store closing and eliminating corporate redundancies. From Sprint’s perspective these savings would be significant. The carrier has not turned a profit in the past 10 years. However, with these savings (even a portion of these savings) the carrier hypothetically would have been profitable all 10 years. Regulatory Hurdles This merger is not a done deal by any means. It faces regulatory scrutiny from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Under the administration of former President Barack Obama, AT&T and T-Mobile attempted to merge only to be shot down by the government. Sprint and T-Mobile were reportedly told not to even try four years ago. The prior administration's thinking had constantly been that by allowing any combination of the big 4 U.S. wireless carriers to merge into three, consolidation would negatively impact the average consumer due to lower competition in the market. On the conference call Marcelo Claure noted that regulatory approval is “the elephant in the room.” Claure and Legere are expected to embark on a tour of Washington D.C. to try and gain favor for the merger later this week. Much has changed in Washington since Sprint and T-Mobile’s last attempt at a tie-up, but whether or not a merger is anywhere close to a guarantee to pass remains in limbo. President Donald Trump has positioned himself as a pro-business President, meeting with Masa Son shortly after his election. And while Trump’s FCC chairman Ajit Pai has made comments signaling he may be more open to market consolidation than his predecessors; President Trump’s DOJ is simultaneously attempting to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner. Claure and Legere noted that they had talked to Pai, but had yet to talk to anyone at the DOJ prior to announcing the merger. The Sell With nothing guaranteed, selling this merger to the government and the public is going to be the key factor on whether or not it ultimately gets approved. Sprint and T-Mobile executives wasted no time in starting on Sunday launching the pro merger site allfor5g.com. Legere and Claure continued touting the merger in a series of interviews and television appearances Sunday night and Monday morning. Based on early results, the argument for the merger is fairly crafted towards its intended audience. The crux of T-Mobile and Sprint’s contention is that 5G is the future, and the future is costly. Both companies maintain a 3rd stronger carrier is better than 4 carriers in a market, two of which are at a capital disadvantage. Claure noted that, “It’s a very simple rule of business---both companies need each other.” Sprint has 2.5 GHz spectrum that will be optimal for 5G but lacks the financial resources to deploy its own. A new T-Mobile benefits from the 2.5 GHz spectrum, a larger combined customer base, financial synergies, and greater economies of scale to effectively deploy 5G. Legere noted their goal to eventually be able to provide 450 Mbit/s speeds consistently everywhere. The 5G argument is significant for a couple of reasons. The first is the current administration has made 5G a quasi-national security issue. The merger of Qualcomm and Broadcom was blocked partially on the grounds of China taking the lead in 5G, and it was widely reported at one point that the Trump administration was considering nationalizing 5G out of security concerns with China. The goal here is that if you let New T-Mobile happen they contend that they will be in a position to deliver 5G rapidly, creating a sense of urgency that a deal needs to be approved sooner than later. If you don’t let them combine they aren’t in the same position to make that happen. They also contended that 5G would allow for the innovators of the future, a not so thinly veiled overall economic development message. The other major 5G argument centers on rural expansion. For a long-time wireless rural cell service and rural broadband have been an important political and economic development issue. Historically rural service has lagged as the infrastructure cost to deliver service far exceeds any revenue operators can hope to recoup. Legere and Claure have immediately been pushing the notion that a merger would allow the combined carrier to bring rural broadband across the nation (as well as creating jobs in rural areas during the network deployment). Lastly, their final argument centers around job creation. Typically, one of the reasons companies merge is that you can save money by eliminating duplicate positions within two separate organizations. Legere on Sunday claimed that this merger would create “thousands of American jobs” with 200,000 people working either directly for or on behalf of a combined entity. This likely faces more regulatory scrutiny than some of the other pro-merger arguments, as again typically mergers result in overall contraction. Furthermore, Sprint on its own announced several hundred layoffs within the past few months. Why now? In the near term, the FCC at some point soon is going to impose a quiet period forbidding anyone that is participating in this fall’s spectrum auction (an auction Sprint and T-Mobile are seeking a waiver for to jointly coordinate bidding strategies) from discussing mergers. Additionally, the longer the wait is, it is likely some of the merger synergies would be eliminated. Sprint towers that are redundant to T-Mobile are not to Sprint itself. If Sprint's executive team was to be believed, Sprint was poised to spend $5 to 6 billion on Capex each of the next three years. Undoubtedly some of that, a potentially significant portion, would've been on towers T-Mobile has no interest in retaining. Slightly longer term, if there was ever a presidential administration to try this under it is this one. Much like this merger's outcome President Trump's re-election is far from a certainty. If a Democratic administration were to come back to Washington D.C. odds of any merger approval diminish significantly. Longer term yet, Sprint hasn’t turned a profit in 10 years. Marcelo Claure has done a more than admirable job at steering the ship during his four-year tenure: cutting costs, coming up with creative cost-effective network deployment strategies, etc. However, at some point access to traditional borrowing markets may have been cutoff due to Sprint's inability to generate a profit or even consistent free cash flows. It didn’t appear imminent given their two-time borrowing this year, but the company has over $27 billion in debt due over the next 6 years. It is pretty easy to envision a scenario where bond investors said times up. Beyond that, the simple burden of debt may have become so overwhelming that even if it didn't threaten the going concern of the company, it negatively impacted capital expenditures, something we've seen recently. Long-term is actually the story of the past 5+ years. Sprint has incredible spectrum assets, but it needed someone more financially able and willing to deploy them. SoftBank through either inability to act due to debt covenants with Japanese banks lending it money or through deliberate choice—in hindsight was never the savior it seemed. On paper, this merger should seemingly create a financially healthy company that finally is able to leverage Sprint's vast spectrum assets. However, as in the past, time will tell... Source: 5gforall- https://allfor5g.com/
  5. 1) How so? 2) No it did not.
  6. 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.
  7. Mr.Nuke

    Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

    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.
  8. 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.
  9. $1.266 billion, for a total of $2.398 billion for the first two quarters.
  10. Mr.Nuke

    Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

    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.
  11. 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.
  12. The speed test is from at least 11 hours before the screenshot notice the time difference between the system clock and the app clock.
  13. The speedtest.net server is a comcast server. The external IP in the screenshot is a Sprint IP address.
  14. That isn't how it works when a single entity owns/controls 84.7% of the company.
  15. Mr.Nuke

    Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

    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.
  16. Mr.Nuke

    Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

    They did so last quarter??? And we've seen ample anecdotal evidence that they're spending in user tracked markets here.
  17. No I'm talking about a very specific part of a specific state, which neither carrier currently natively serves. Please take a second and go back and read the post, because the last words you left off are very important. " If the merger goes through, that will switch over to T-Mobile's roaming deal with Viaero." Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with Sprint and T-Mobile's separate roaming deal, which almost certainly covers only T-Mobile native coverage.
  18. Pretty much the entire Nebraska panhandle is verizon roaming. If the merger goes through, that will switch over to T-Mobile's roaming deal with Viaero.
  19. Mr.Nuke

    Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

    I haven't ready his testimony and probably won't have a chance to until late tonight or tomorrow, but much like the FCC document, why is this a surprise? Part of the sell job to the regulators and anyone like congress that could potentially step in the way of this is that Sprint (and T-Mobile makes the same argument themselves in their portion of the FCC filing as well) are in precarious position going forward with significant competitive disadvantages to AT&T and Verizon. Selling this, and specifically selling this angle is why Claure is no longer the CEO and why Combes and the rest of the executive team is on a cross country roadshow telling employees the exact opposite of what Claure is telling the regulators. It is all part of the dance.
  20. Mr.Nuke

    Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

    Quite the premise for an article based on a document that is doing everything it can to sell the FCC idea on the notion that the two companies need to merge to survive...
  21. Mr.Nuke

    Sprint Tmobile merger Disc.

    It would be a lot more juicy without the redactions. Great.
  22. Presumably this marks the departure of the free year BYOD plan as there isn't a compelling reason to have both.
  23. Why? They're significantly cheaper than deploying 8T8Rs. So if you have say $10 million to spend in an area in a given year what gets you more bang for your buck 550 8T8Rs or 1650 mini-macro sites?
×