RedSpark

17 more? Where did you read that?

One of Sprint’s arguments for a merger is that it lacks sufficient scale to complete without it. Of course, this means that you have to deliberately set aside (in my opinion) the fact that SoftBank, a global mega-corporation owns nearly 85% of it. Sprint is SoftBank USA, but it seems determined to hide that fact.

And now at less favorable terms than before I believe.

One thing that seems lost (either deliberately or ignorantly) so far on these government regulators and in the mainstream channels in support of this merger is that SoftBank is a multi-billion global corporation of which Sprint is merely a piece. I have to believe this is intentional in some respect as to the market narrative. SoftBank’s unwillingness (or inability as has been claimed in the past based on Japanese bank covenants) to invest enough in Sprint to make it an effective competitor should not be made up for by permitting the market to consolidate from four major players to three, to the detriment of customers in my opinion. My response to SoftBank would be: you had enough money for ARM (http://fortune.com/2016/07/18/softbank-arm-iot/), Uber (https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/10/18563267/softbank-vision-fund-explainer-uber-wework-slack-ipo), Boston Dynamics (https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/softbank-pumps-37m-robot-dog-company-boston-dynamics-103522300.html) among other things. A merger doesn’t need to happen, nor should it. SoftBank wants to have its cake and eat it too. If it was up to me, I’d tell them to go pound sand, open their wallet and invest to enable Sprint to compete.... or to divest itself of Sprint and then sell it to someone who wants to.

I’m curious what they wouldn’t want public about it. Any idea?

I read it this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_seal ”Filed under seal” Filing under seal is a procedure allowing sensitive or confidential information to be filed with a court without becoming a matter of public record.[1] The court generally must give permission for the material to remain under seal.[2]

“The suit was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.” Why was it filed under seal?

I agree that coverage will improve as a result of the merger, and the combination of 600 MHz and 2.5 GHz will create a heck of a network. My issue with this is that the two “also rans” do actually provide competition, and that competitive effect will be reduced if a merger was allowed. The combined entity won’t have anything to offset it. To be honest, I don’t believe there will be additional players to take their place. I believe this merger will be an irreversible mistake.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sprint-m-a-t-mobile-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-state-ags-prepare-lawsuit-to-stop-sprint-and-t-mobile-merger-idUSKCN1TC1OW That could put a wrench in things.

“The Delrahim-Pai lunch meeting was held at Washington, D.C., restaurant Central Michel Richard. People with knowledge of the meeting say it’s unclear if Delrahim was persuaded by Pai’s arguments in support of the merger.” Quintessential DC Power Lunch, but I hope this wasn’t billed to the taxpayers. They could have gone to Pret or Panera and had the same conversation. This Town is such a caricature of itself. I really don’t want this merger to go through. Having four carriers ensures enough market competition. There’s no going back if we go to three carriers. I don’t care what divestitures or assurances are given. It won’t matter.

Perhaps the Galaxy Note will be the first lowband 5G device.

Is it possible they’d get a tweaked version with the x55 Modem to support their 600 MHz network?

It certainly could! Nobody will ever do the kind of breakup fee that T-Mobile had with AT&T again. I’m still in disbelief that AT&T agreed to that arrangement: $4B to $6B depending on how you value it. https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/att-and-t-mobile-whats-2-billion-among-friends/ It literally saved T-Mobile.

If that’s the case, I don’t think we’ll see a 5G device on T-Mobile until then. I can’t imagine T-Mobile wants to launch a 5G device which lacks support for its 600 MHz 5G.

The S10 5G doesn’t have lowband support (600 MHz) for 5G. The Qualcomm x50 Modem doesn’t support it. It’s a first generation 5G Modem and requires a separate LTE Modem. So the S10 5G will only support 5G on T-Mobile where it has deployed Millimeter Wave. The next version version is Qualcomm’s x55 Modem, which is an absolute monster. It uses a single chip to support from 2G to 5G and from 600 MHz to 6 GHz. (With some luck, this is what we’ll see in the iPhone 5G next year. I can’t imagine Apple would want to have two separate Modems in its devices.) We’re likely to see this in the next Samsung Note this Fall.

Here’s info on this: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-sprint-odds-and-ends-breakup-fee-washington-reaction-vendor-implications-and-more “As noted by Axios, Sprint and T-Mobile won’t have to pay a breakup fee if regulators from the FCC or Department of Justice manage to kill the proposed merger. However, according to documents the companies filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, T-Mobile would owe Sprint $600 million if the company decides to walk away from the transaction, among other circumstances.” I hope it goes right to capex or paying down debt.

It’s citing a recent filing that Sprint submitted which shows this cost. Sprint 10-K: https://s21.q4cdn.com/487940486/files/doc_financials/quarterly/2018/Q4/6e85121b-8fd4-4683-9245-773404e6fa25.pdf See Page 34: “We also incurred merger-related costs of $346 million , which were recorded as selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations. We expect to recognize merger-related costs until the Merger Transactions are completed.” In comparison, Sprint lost $180 million on the abandoned monopole build strategy: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-lost-180m-abandoned-monopole-network-buildout-plan

T-Mobile merger bid has cost Sprint $346M Not cheap.

That's very encouraging news. I guess we'll see if Sprint's 5G impacts customer adds at some point.

Seems like they're trying to straighten things up on the debt side....

Saw this in the news: https://newsroom.sprint.com/sprint-communications-announces-consent-solicitation-with-respect-to-its-7000-guaranteed-notes-due-2020.htm

Nice recap.

Interesting post/video about the work of Sprint’s Hive: https://newsroom.sprint.com/what-is-hive.htm

Either way though, 5G is doing what it’s supposed to do here. They should add capacity to that LTE site, if it’s picking up a different one. I seem to recall that the footprint for 5G from Massive MIMO sites will essentially be the same as the LTE footprint from them, given that Sprint is using similar frequencies and running it off of the same Massive MIMO gear. Of course, not every site will be Massive MIMO.

Taking your statement on its face. What do you expect the uptake for 5G devices to be on Sprint as part of the customer base? The LG V50 is the only 5G handset on Sprint until the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G launches. Note that the LG V50 is only available in the four initial 5G Launch Markets to start off. We probably won’t have an iPhone 5G until Fall 2020 given the Intel/Qualcomm issues, in addition to the fact that 5G isn’t widely available enough for Apple’s liking. Of course, VoLTE is supported on iPhone 8 and later models, so that’s not a concern here. So yes, some folks will upgrade to these 5G devices and have VoLTE right away. In short, there are more current customers who have relatively current devices like the S9/Note 9/Pixel 3 series who don’t yet have VoLTE supported than the people who are upgrading to 5G devices.