Jump to content


S4GRU Staff
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Mr.Nuke

  1. On 5/11/2020 at 11:52 AM, S4GRU said:

    It will be interesting to see what happens to Swiftel.  Since Swiftel is owned by a government agency, I doubt it will be sold to T-Mobile.  And I don't think Tmo wants them as an affiliate.  And since Tmo already has a network inside Swiftel's territory, I don't think they need them.  My guess is they will go their own ways and Tmo should start adding n41 to their sites in Sioux Falls, Sioux City, Vermillion, Brookings and Watertown very soon.  Tmo does need to density their network though a little bit.  Especially in Brookings.


    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.

    • Like 3

  2. 45 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

    Not for the first 7 years that's a stipulation to get the merger to pass. TMO didn't have to pay att when that merger failed for the first 7 years.

    Where is that coming from? It isn't accurate... And the T-Mobile AT&T situation isn't really analogous here at all.

    56 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

    Dish certainly has to pay T-Mobile for being an MVNO.


    20 minutes ago, Cardsfan96 said:

    I thought it was just giving dish a certain, very good price for the first seven years. Not free use.

    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.

    • Like 5

  3. 4 hours ago, PedroDaGr8 said:

    I noticed on my phone that T-Mobile has reordered the band priority moving B41 from second to third. Previously it went B25->B41->B26; now it goes B25->B26->B41. This explains why I have been connecting to B26 a LOT more often than I used to. My guess is this is part of the preliminary steps to phase out B41. 

    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.


    • Like 2

  4. 4 hours ago, Mr.Nuke said:

    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. 

    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...

    • Like 1

  5. On 7/9/2019 at 11:34 AM, chris92 said:

    Yeah so Speedconnect and Sprint initially did some swaps back in middle of 2017 - mostly Sprint got SC's E, F, and H block for their BRS2 (and probably some money).  Last year, it looks like SpeedConnect let their Blackhawk College lease expire for the C and D block, and Sprint picked those 2 up, so now they are sitting pretty well with 100MHz+.  At their current configuration, it seems like they are only using the F, H, and G-blocks.  I haven't seen any C, D or E spectrum used around here yet.  

    Almost all the sites are using 3 B41 carriers, but only a couple sites I've seen have really great speeds (Southpark Mall site I've got 100+).  They must still have limited site backhaul for most of them.





    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.

    • Like 2

  6. 5 hours ago, greenbastard said:

    I'm talking more along the lines of the energy area known as the Concho Valley. West Texas includes everything from Lubbock down to San Angelo and Midland-Odessa. It's a pretty massive area.

    Sprint T-Mobile has EBS in San Angelo.

    5 hours ago, greenbastard said:

    Also, those maps are highly inaccurate when it comes to the 2.5/2.6 Ghz licenses (or at least last I checked). It's a mess.

    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. 

    • Like 1

  7. 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

  8. 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.


  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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?


  13. 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

  14. 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
  • Create New...