Arysyn

Seeing those numbers really came to a shock for me. Granted I recently decided to fully support this merger, it does seem sad that so much of Sprint's network is going to be dismantled, regardless of the merger's advantages of having the spectrum being put to good use finally on all towers. Yes we will see the deployment numbers where we've been hoping for many years to have, but in terms of density - this isn't so good as some, including myself thought it would be. So, as I understand it now - please correct me if I'm wrong about this the "new" T-Mobile is in fact keeping 85,000 of Sprint's network sites, but eliminating the rest, or 35,000 of them? I'm curious how many T-Mobile sites there currently are and how much there will be after this convergence. Also, how many sites does AT&T and Verizon singularly have? I'm interested in the density figures too, not just spectrum.

That looks quite good! My guess earlier was T5GRU, but I'm now wondering if perhaps the name, if carrying the same theme, ought to be TMO5GRU. The reason being is the known short name for T-Mobile has been TMO for quite a long time. TMO5GRU sounds more connected to T-Mobile than just "T" or even "TM". However, I personally think this would be a great time for this site to get away from the connection with a wireless "Generation", instead being titled after wireless network technology in general. The other issue is, does this site want to go from a very strong, loyal Sprint/Network enthusiast site, to being a T-Mobile one. While I acknowledge this site's connection with Sprint first and foremost, the other strong point to this site that has differentiated itself from other sites, is the knowledgeable network-centric aspect to this site, a unique network focus to say, XDAdevelopers phone modification focus, TmoNews' T-Mobile focus, and the several Android websites focused on Android. Of course I don't exactly know what Robert has in mind, plans he has, and so on. Still, I'm going to suggest the same thing I've been for a while now here. I personally suggest the site become more of a general wireless forum, as an alternative to HowardForums, but with a strong network-focus, and also continue with the member-driven support system S4GRU has relied on for funding for a long time up to now, without the advertising HowardForums has. I have a few naming ideas, if the domains are available. Mobile Networking Observance Mobile Networking Obsession Mobile Networking Odyssey or as a nod to Sprint's past, Mobile Networking Overland Being that Mobile Networking is the soul of the site -the heart being Sprint, any variation to my suggestion of no longer following the generation sequence in naming, and the movement to a general wireless basis, ought to at least recognize the big focus of the site, this here being mobile networking. The reason I'm suggesting using the "O" at the end, is for an easy flow to the name, similar to how GRU sounds. Alphabetically, O being after N, which itself is after M, flows really nicely. MNO, which also sounds close to TMO and the famous Sprint cell site term GMO. The representation options for "O" I presented, while "Overland" is a nice gesture to the Sprint hq, my preference is "Obsession".

Maybe if the deal closes by next year's "Avengers" film release, they could do a take on that with Legere, Claure, Paul, Des, along with bringing Carly back and some other Tmo executives taking on the evil duopoly.

I sure hope not, though I'd love to see the combined Sprint/T-Mobile purchase Dish, which would increase the 600mhz spectrum to a minimum 15x15 across the country, with many areas being 20x20. Then there is the 20x20 AWS-4 the new T-Mobile would get, securing plenty of spectrum for years, if not decades for them.

T-Mobile XL ?

That reminds me of a good question... What will the new name of S4GRU be? I doubt it'll be T4GRU though, especially with the 5G push? T5GRU perhaps?

This is why I think eventually they'll co-locate the combined companies to Las Vegas by building a huge stunning new headquarters there Des will get to show off in an opening video.

Thanks, Terrell. That makes more sense... I couldn't imagine the company getting rid of 85,000 sites, though still the 35,000 going away is quite alot too, the closely by sites to T-Mobile's towers.

How many towers does Sprint have? 85,000 to be decommissioned sounds like a majority. Got to admit it doesn't seem much of a plan for densification, unless they're planning to readd towers in better locations.

Great for Sprint users, but I want access to band41 and the improved Sprint network here in Chicago. I would have switched to Sprint, but the T-Mobile pricing deal is just too good.

Will T-Mobile users be able to access the Sprint network immediately too?

This is exactly why I'm supporting this merger : added spectrum that will actually get deployed and the network over time densified to make band41 work in more places. Just the added sites T-Mobile has should help things considerably.

Glorious!

Because it makes sense to have just one hq, and if they can't choose between the two, then move to just one place. Besides, Overland Park isn't very convenient of a location to either of the major cities on either coast. Las Vegas is, they have their arena there so having their hq nearby is a plus. Then they could simply operate a small hub on the other side of the country, NYC being best. Just keeping Bellevue doesn't sound like itll work either.

I don't agree with having two headquarters. Seems like a waste having to transit multiple executives between the two locations. Just have it in one place. Surely the Overland Park location is plenty big for both, more space perhaps than the Bellevue location. Personally I think the combined company should move out of both locations and move to Las Vegas, where T-Mobile has its arena. If then they decide they need another hub to go with it, open one up in New York City.

Looking at the lightish-green background here on mobile S4GRU, makes me think of MINT, for Mobile Interactive Networking & Telecommunications.

Thats interesting to know. It just is surprising to look at. I'm curious too if the nature of the buildout cost factored in (or not) with the value of the spectrum. Meaning if there weren't so much cost involved in densifying the network for 2.5ghz, would the value of the spectrum itself be higher, because at 120mhz of it, I would think so I know pretty much most of us, if not all, want Sprint to densify for better band41 coverage. I know its suppose to have got better over the years as far as coverage, based on reports, but there still is alot to be done. I'm not saying general coverage, but specifically band41 coverage. When I had Sprint, rarely did it connect to band41, mostly it was the then-meager amount of PCS coverage. However, where I did find excellent band41 in Schaumburg , Illinois, the network with it was simply amazing! That even was before CA 1x. With that kind of coverage in a much wider area and deeply densified, Sprint on its own (No Softbank, No T-Mobile), could really dominate the industry. Of course Sprint on its own no longer is an option, so between Softbank with its many lies and false promises, or T-Mobile with its honest, walk-the-talk, get the job done track record to develop the kind of Sprint network we've been wanting from the days of Network Vision, clearly the choice is T-Mobile. Seriously do we really want more of a very wealthy man in Japan telling us time and time again he's going to spend billions of dollars into Sprint, just as he likely will if this merger fails again, saying "Yes, we will invest in Sprint now", only to in a month or two, say " We found a potential new buyer for Sprint, yes! This merger will help Sprint!", only to fail yet again, followed by more promises to invest in Sprint while he goes around investing billions in other companies while continuing to remind us of his "Global Vision". I truly would much rather hear John Legere fart while owning Sprint, knowing at least he's actually building the network, rather than more false talk from Son. Again, this is not a rant against Sprint. I very much would love for Sprint to be the independent thriving future company it was with Dan Hesse. If it could do that again, without Softbank or T-Mobile , great! It just isn't looking like thats a possibility at this point, sadly.

I'm pretty surprised by the deal, and of course hope it goes through, especially at the reported $24 billion, just seems low though. $65 billion definitely is more a number I'd expect to hear.

As I wrote to Mr. Nuke, I really don't have much of an opinion of this, nor any interest in the financial particulars of the deal, only the network details. I'll only say this briefly - earlier it was reported to be $26 billion ( thats what I'm saying was reported - I'm not sure nor claiming to be sure about what that figure is exactly). Yet now reports are $24 billion. Regardless of what is true about it, again I'm not getting into details other than detailing the issue of me not going into details as means of defending myself - something I sadly had to do for a while after I first joined here. People felt uncomfortable with my writing style of opinion discussion around the news - similar to cable news programs, whereas this site generally has a style of presenting news points as factual information, rather relying so much on opinionated perspectives/viewpoints which often can lead into debates and arguments. I respect this site for that - I'm not complaining about it, but my writing style just is what it is. I'm not interested so much in just writing things like "I saw Sprint engineers installing a magic box in the NE corner of our public library", but rather "I sure hope the magic box being put in the public library is going to provide good service, because all carriers' signal is crap inside of it currently, its really bad". I simply don't even have enough interest in the financial details of the merger to state a debatable opinion either. So, whether the amount is bad or not I really don't have an opinion of that. All I have said about these financial details, is that I thought it was higher in the past deals, the factor of the $2 billion dollar difference between the reported figures. Regardless of the reasons behind this, my opinion is Sprint should be worth more than either figure, because of how much spectrum they have, along with what reports are saying about how it'll help T-Mobile's 5G plans, etc. My opinion mostly based on what we know about it in regards to the network. Its a pretty huge deal, one where there are lots of opinions, but I certainly am not taking my opinions into matters such as factual details regarding the specifics of the negotiations, nor am I trying to place judgment over it in any way by my brief opinion.

I can tell by your responses you and I don't agree and that perhaps you don't like me, which is fine. No need for popularity contests here on S4GRU anyways, which is one of the good things about this site as there are no "cliques" around here, no groups of members trying to show some sort of entitlement over others. I'm not trying to get into a discussion over the technicalities of the merger deal, in terms of how nor why the price changes. I'm sure you can tell that when an issue relating to wireless networks or business mergers is important to me, I'll write in detail about it to an extent. It use to be that I'd write too long about something, but for quite some time I've done better at keeping things within a few paragraphs, and no one here ever complained accusing me of not using paragraphs properly, but rather that I've written too many paragraphs, which isn't an issue anymore. Notice though how I've only written a few sentences regarding the financial particulars of the merger deal. I've not gone into detail because it isn't an interest to me - I'm not trying to make it so either. Not once have I tried making a single claim of it. The only interest I have in the merger at all is network-related, not regarding the terms of the deal, etc. My only comment about the financials is based purely on my opinion, never engaging in a factual discussion of the particulars of how or why and what not. So, I'm not sure why you're responding to me as though I was. If I were - and I'm sure you'd be able to tell based on my past writing which I've described here in this post, by all means correct me if I'm stating things that are untrue or confused about the issue in a way you decide to try pointing out correctly. Again though, I haven't even begun to make any kind of factual discussion of these issues. What I have said about it, which I'll restate here, simply is that the earlier $26 billion dollar figure seemed low to me. Thats it with what I said about it earlier. I didn't go into detail, other than in my first response to you, I added that I thought the deal was for more in the past and that again, -my opinion-, Sprint seems like it should be worth more. However, I did not go into anything relating as to why this is, why I think it is the way it is, opinions/facts beyond that, etc. I said nothing else about it until a short bit ago when I saw the $24 billion dollar figure, which is $2 billion dollars less. My comment of the deal value dropping $2 billion is correct. Subtracting $24 billion from $26 billion is the difference of $2 billion. Beyond that I made not a single comment here as to why this difference, whats behind that, how this figure came to be, anything that even remotely could legitimately be related to my making a confused statement that naturally implies a misunderstanding to which "That's not how it/any of it works" is a necessary response, because again, I never made any kind of background statement. Its like having someone say they like the rain, while having another person respond to them they're misunderstanding meteorology, or a person saying they hate crime, while having another person say to them they're misunderstanding how the criminal justice system works. It has nothing to do with the original comment.

Wow, the value dropped $2 billon since earlier today.

That is what I'm figuring it might be, but I'm not sure. I have the Microsoft Lumia 950xl, which when I bought it there were still some small chance of better support from Microsoft than what there is now. Thankfully I got it at a great price brand new around $300 from B&H, which at the time was well worth it. Now I'm not so sure its even worth $200. The Honor 7x at $200 probably is a better deal actually.

I wasn't thinking based on the current deal, but rather from past negotiations. I thought the value was higher in the past. Edit Note : I'll rephrase my perspective here. I wasn't commenting specifically on how it got to that figure, in terms of pure calculation based on the agreed price, but rather from the past negotiations and in terms of my perceived value of Sprint, which I'd expect to be higher. I realize Sprint isn't in the best shape financially right now, but it has an amazing spectrum portfolio - the most spectrum of any carrier, yet only $26 billion? That is what I meant by it seeming low.

$26 billion sounds pretty low. I would have expected it to be twice that cost.

Sounds like he may go jogging with John Legere perhaps? Anyways, I found a good article up on Forbes discussing the benefits of the merger : https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2018/04/27/are-sprint-t-mobile-finally-going-to-make-a-deal/#74bed6384499 The combination of added PCS spectrum to the network between Sprint and T-Mobile's current PCS holdings, much needed additional low-band and mid-band spectrum for Sprint customers using 600mhz spectrum and AWS, and of course the main prize for all Sprint and T-Mobile customers - hugely deployed/densified band 41 spectrum used for 5G, which Forbes mentions the need of it for T-Mobile's 5G. Of course the issue for Sprint is deployment/densification, as the costs are huge to add more cell towers and work in adding it to existing towers, which the added combined income and savings from the merger will provide - no more waiting on hoping Softbank will help fund it only to find out they're investing billions in another company rather than on Sprint.