Jump to content


S4GRU Staff
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Mr.Nuke

  1. 14 hours ago, jefbal99 said:

    I'm back to the old issues when the Q beta was brand new of SCP not reporting data, unless I'm in the app.

    Everything is dashes until the app has time to refresh


    Pixel 4 XL

    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.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2

  2. 2 hours ago, red_dog007 said:

    With all the money moving around that Softbank did at Sprint when they bought them, didn't Sprint sell a lot of their 2.5GHz to shell companies held by Softbank and lease them back?  So a lot of the 2.5GHz isn't actually owned or leased directly to New-TMobile, but New-TMobile leasing via these shell companies?

    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.


  3. 7 hours ago, greenbastard said:

    I don't think anything specific has been said about T-Mobile users being able to use Sprint towers. Why give T-Mobile users extra coverage if you're just going to shut off most of the Sprint towers 3 years later?

    If a given Sprint tower would be giving T-Mobile users "extra coverage" odds are it is probably going to be kept post merger.

    4 hours ago, RedSpark said:

    So basically the entirety of both networks is getting a coverage and capacity audit?

    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.

    • Like 2

  4. 16 hours ago, IrwinshereAgain said:

    As I understand it, if Softbank wanted to put an extra 5 Billion Dollars in Sprint, they would also have to buy up the remaining shares of Sprint stock they did not already own. 

    I believe your understanding is incorrect.

    16 hours ago, IrwinshereAgain said:

    As part of the Softbank purchase of Sprint, they were restricted to the max percentage of Stock they could own.  If they went over that limit, they are required to buy up all of the remaining stock.  I can try to find a reference if someone else does not post it first.

    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.

    • Like 6

  5. Sorry for being late to this and some of this is repeating New York.

    On 5/8/2019 at 12:19 PM, tyroned3222 said:

    Even if cash flow positive.. how is sprint going to cover debt payments that are coming due..

    They have $7 billion in cash and just under $10 billion in liquid assets.

    On 5/8/2019 at 12:25 PM, RedSpark said:

    Look at Page 20 of the Investor Update which shows its liquidity vs current maturities: https://s21.q4cdn.com/487940486/files/doc_financials/quarterly/2018/Q4/Fiscal-4Q18-Sprint-Quarterly-Investor-Update-FINAL.pdf

    Then take a look at its debt schedule here: https://investors.sprint.com/financials/default.aspx

    Does that change your opinion?

    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.

    On 5/8/2019 at 12:30 PM, tyroned3222 said:

    He’s talking about a massive restructuring of their debt which is what it would take to make this happen as sprint is 40 billion in debt.. sprint spends 2.6 billon per year servicing their debt( imagine if they could spend that on the network). Sprint churn is raising, gross add shares are falling too

    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.

    On 5/8/2019 at 1:01 PM, tyroned3222 said:

    On 40 billion in debt ?

    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.

    On 5/8/2019 at 12:49 PM, RedSpark said:

    And how long can Sprint keep that up for without sufficient free cash flow?

    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

    • Like 10

  6. 8 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

    Yes, that’s true.

    In the past, Sprint’s earnings calls for the Fiscal 4Q were held on:

    May 2, 2018

    May 3, 2017

    May 3, 2016

    May 5, 2015

    We’ll see what happens...

    Which points pretty strongly to May 7th. If that date comes and goes then this post is appropriate...

    8 hours ago, RedSpark said:

    Still no word on Sprint’s Fiscal 4Q2018 Earnings Report Date... https://investors.sprint.com

    What’s going on over there?


  7. 20 minutes ago, Brad The Beast said:

    Let's give this thread some life. Pulled from Reddit: Massive MIMO deployed on a handful of sites in Omaha, NE. https://imgur.com/gallery/LwiNW1J#JEYfPKK

    I say this as one of two staff members on this site that lives in Omaha, but this market has a fairly active thread on the premier sponsor level  that tracks B26/B41 deployments locally, and has been tracking MIMO permits. It still isn't clear to us where those photos are actually from. Thanks for the link though.

    • Like 5

  8. 1 hour ago, belusnecropolis said:

    That is specifically One Billions Dollars more then the anticipated New T-Mobile capex over the next 3 years*. Without knowing a timeline for this spend, it is hard to say how crazy this sounds, but it sounds crazy. Good work the non profit performed for negotiating such a commitment, it is the equivalent to much of the value of Sprint, including debt.

    The $41 billion is the nationwide Capex spend over the first 3 years of the combined company. It had previously been "up to $40 billion" when the merger was announced so I don't think California really got anything there.

    • Like 1

  9. 19 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

    The bigger question what the F did they lock your BYOD in the first place. I've never had the happen

    It isn't "locked". That phone could take any sim other than a Sprint MVNO right now.

    1 hour ago, Grabber5.0 said:

    Strange. Not a Pixel, but none of my Nexus devices (5 and 5X) ever gave me any trouble switching between Sprint and my Tracfone or T-Mobile prepaid SIMs. I would think it not possible for an unlocked device to get locked to the Sprint network. But that is probably a gross oversimplification. default_smile.png

    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.

    • Like 3

  10. 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.

    • Like 2

  11. On 12/29/2018 at 5:39 PM, dedeary said:

    If Sprint thinks you deserve one 

    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.

    35 minutes ago, SeanK_ said:

    Just ask Sprint for one for free. Why pay for a free device?

    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.

    • Like 6

  12. 9 minutes ago, Mr.Nuke said:

    1) How so? 2) No it did not.


    8 minutes ago, lilotimz said:



    What happened was T-Mobile and Sprint inked a spectrum swap and subsequent leasing deal for each others spectrum that is valued at XXX amount of dollars. Spectrum is expensive and particular usable midband spectrum so the cost was highlighted. 

    When a spectrum swap occurs the companies don't immediately hand over the spectrum. What occurs is the entities most of the time will do the formal swap on paper but immediately lease the spectrum back to each other for a specific period of time where they will coordinate a proper handover when both sides are ready. 

    In this case Sprint and T-mobile likely both have LTE carriers on said spectrum and thus at a certain point and time in the future they both will coordinate a swap over to the spectrum they swapped. This is primarily to prevent their respectives sites from causing interference to each other. 


    7 minutes ago, Dkoellerwx said:

    Are you reading the same article I am? None of what you are saying is in the article. I think you are bringing in personal speculation or that of others that you have been reading. 

    No staff collusion.



    • Like 2
    • Haha 2
    • Confused 1

  13. 2 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

    So this was only about PCS? I thought they wanted to get a head start since the Merger is likely going to pass. https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-inks-533m-reciprocal-long-term-spectrum-lease-deal-sprint

    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.

  14. On 10/30/2018 at 9:42 PM, dkyeager said:

    T-Mobile has stated they believe it will take three years to combine both networks.  Then you have the task of competing with the duo, which will require more sites to provide new or better coverage and certainly more bands at each site, plus conversion of various bands to 5g.  The duo will not stand still.  The new T-Mobile will have to hit a moving target.

    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.

    • Like 4
  • Create New...