Arysyn

1 hour ago, anthony.spina97 said:

Absolutley loving the X. Wow, this screen! So cool learning to use my iPhone in different ways than before, yet it feeling so familiar and intuitive.

 

-Anthony

I'm still waiting to try mine tomorrow. My mother is putting the case on the X then, and hopefully I'll get actual new 10ft Lightning cords from Amazon tomorrow. She had to call Amazon yesterday to get them to send new ones, because the ones they sent us which arrived yesterday were used products with a bunch of cheap Scotch tape on opened packaging. The items were directly from the Amazon warehouse, not from a third party.

I need them for the car, because instead of my having to worry about battery life, , I have a five port car charger. I also got a fancy call/volume capable charger dongle for it that I'm going to use for the aux car speaker system.

5 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

That is contrary to what is known. He did shop selling the company completely right around the first time the Mobile merger fell through. No one wanted to buy the company. 

5 hours ago, Fraydog said:

Sprint can prove everyone wrong and go for maxing out investment since no one believes it this time around. 

Fraydog, essentially I agree with your point here, but I want to correct you on something you said here (respectfully, no offense meant at all).

Despite Sprint being owned by Softbank and there being some integral connections between the two, its important that the two companies be viewed separately at least for the time being unless/until Softbank were to fully purchase and completely own Sprint.

I imagine perhaps you made an error in wording Sprint there regarding investment meant as Softbank instead. Lately in alot of comments I've seen from people who generally use to be critical of Sprint, are not focusing so much on that anymore, but rather towards Softbank and Masayoshi Son, which is undeniable that Softbank/Son has spent a bunch of time since owning Sprint, not getting regulatory support for their initial "attempts" seeking a merger with T-Mobile, by trying to sell Sprint elsewhere, along with waiting for other merger opportunities with T-Mobile, rather than actively investing in Sprint's network.

Meanwhile, Sprint has done some things to help manage the business during this time to improve on their service in ways they could be reasonably successful, minimizing risks and things that were hampering the company's opportunities for future successes. While I think some of what Sprint has been doing would have been better to do later on after their own investing outside of any involvement from Softbank and Son, I still understand and support Sprint doing what they have done, such as financial stability decisions, the Magic Box, and some other things.

Despite there also being some actions that I believe were not so good, such as Pokemon and Tidal, money which certainly could have been spent on network investment, perhaps there was an internal overview of the situation where the network spending had to be bigger than those other investments, something that needed backing of Softbank, or at least in the minimum the need for some time to pass where money could be put into it over time to be announced later on, as it has recently.

However, Sprint would not have had such delays in network spending if Softbank had committed to that much earlier, rather than focusing on merger attempts involving Sprint, along with those costly mergers outside of Sprint in which certainly those billions used were far more costly than Sprint's own investments in Pokemon and Tidal. That is what people are criticizing Softbank for, and why there is suspicion and a lack of confidence in Softbank for what is being mentioned in the media regarding their sudden refreshed commitment to Sprint.

It'll be great, if true, and I have some hope Masayoshi Son has plans in mind connected with the cable industry in the future that could be very beneficial for Sprint, though not pushing for cable interaction so much right now.

1 hour ago, SprintNYC said:

Talk about  Salty Magentas. LOL Jesus

 

 

There really are alot of crazy Sprint haters online that say some odd things, or they'll take a reasonable criticism then turn it into something that is very inappropriate. Then there are those that appear to have a terminal condition where Sprint hate is like a symptom reliever for them. Instead of taking pills at various intervals throughout the day, they go online to say something bad about Sprint. Its a nasty thing!

However, some of the comments I've seen regarding Masa makes sense, and its appearing to me that in a way, Softbank has become a shield for Sprint. I can't even blame those targeting Softbank because its a very different situation than what's been happening with Sprint. Softbank doesn't have the recent history of financial troubles Sprint has had. Although thankfully, Sprint's executive employees the past few years have improved things for Sprint where they can, despite being limited.

Softbank could have resolved this sooner but didn't. So to that I understand the frustrations. Hopefully now though, Softbank really intends to spend on Sprint.

1 hour ago, joshnys8913 said:

I have mentioned this before and I am going to have to disagree with a dish merger deal, I think Sprint would be better off getting into talks with US Cellular in my opinion, if Sprint merged with US Cellular that would give Sprint a bit of an edge I think because US cellular have some nice untouched coverage that one one else has, for example parts of Maine, and various other areas that US cellular only seems to be the only one in town. (I could be wrong but IF I were Son I'd talk to US Cellular and see if they would be interested in a merger deal). 

I think Sprint would be better merging with US Cellular also. I've been reading the merger cancellation article comments on TmoNews where some people are suggesting a T-Mobile merger with US Cellular, which I think is a big NO! I don't want to see any executives from there getting positions in Tmobile and making some bad decisions after getting on John Legere's good side. Whereas Sprint would do much better keeping that from happening in their company. Besides, Sprint already has a history working with US Cellular and is able to deal with that company in a way that works for them.

Dish is a much better suitor for T-Mobile. While I understand the doubts some of you have about Ergen and his ability to work with Legere, and even his retirement, its got to happen sometime, and right now it makes the best sense to go with T-Mobile. Verizon isn't a bad choice either, but Verizon, like Sprint, both seem that they are going towards a cable deal.

44 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

If Dish and T-Mobile get together they will probably have to give up some of the 600MHz spectrum or allow roaming at very low rates.

I'm thinking the two might give up some of the 700mhz spectrum and/or the combined AWS-3 spectrum holdings. I really doubt either would give up the 600mhz spectrum, especially since combined would make for a very powerful wide low-band.

My opinion that I've very heavily promoted here on S4GRU, sometimes exhaustively to great lengths, has been my idea that wireless carriers ought to do much more spectrum trades that give them fewer spectrum bands, but focus the ones they have on getting them wideband.

T-Mobile could try to get their 600mhz with Dish at 20x20, getting more when needed and trading the additional spectrum above 40mhz with other carriers for more mid-band spectrum. Dish already has 40mhz of AWS-4 spectrum, so if T-Mobile could pursue meetings with the other carriers in regards to their AWS-1, AWS-3, and PCS spectrum, it would be interesting to see how that would work out.

This even could be used for marketing for fair, open competition where the carriers are meeting together to work on their networks and allocating spectrum in the best way for their consumers in a fashion that doesn't involve talks of mergers, etc. and does this as a show of business working together in the free market.

Just now, SprintNYC said:

Dish 600MHZ is mostly a 5x5 nationwide and only 10x10 in the New York Tri-state area. Softbank dropped ball, the Germans were never going to give Masa control of their company, therefore, Softbank needed to bid in the 600mhz auction. Instead, they allowed Tmobile to walk out with all the spectrum. 

 

I think Softbank did a bad calculation thinking that oh we could get Tmobile alone with their 600mhz holdings.

Dish and T-Mobile together would make great use of that spectrum. Better for Sprint though to focus on densification of band 41.

16 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

At some point or another, Sprint needs to approach Dish about hosting their spectrum beginning with the 600MHz spectrum. Maybe not right away but if they want to be a truly nationwide carrier they need to reduce their roaming expenses and at least cover the highways.

I don't think Sprint alone will get Dish involved, because then it likely would interfere with Sprint's involvement with cable companies. My guess is if Masa really is serious about growing Sprint now, he is going to get to work on talks with cable companies. This deal with Altice, while I don't see much to it right now, I'll recognize Masa for his efforts in trying to get other companies involved in Sprint, which since T-Mobile didn't happen, he's going towards cable. I'm thinking this could end up in a big payday for him and Softbank, with positions on the board of a big combined cable deal that may involve Verizon eventually. Perhaps he was comparing this with what he would have got from T-Mobile, and decided this other opportunity was potentially a much better deal, and it may very well turn out that way, or possibly not.

Either way, its very doubtful he'd turn away an offer for T-Mobile to then go with Dish, which is not as good of a deal for Sprint. Whereas T-Mobile now may go for a deal with Dish, which would put T-Mobile in a great position to compete with AT&T, while if the route Sprint goes does not end up including Verizon, there could end up being national cable network of two companies, one that would have Sprint, while the other has Verizon. Its one of my few theories regarding cable, an industry I believe will at least undergo some consolidation now that there is so much cord cutting and tough competition among cable viewing bundles. If not for alot more consolidation or partnerships that would combine Sprint nd Verizon's wireless network's for a powerful way of delivering mobile video among served cable markets.

31 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Samsung just released this new ad which takes us back over 10 years of the iPhone and makes a swipe at the "notch":

Speaking for myself: I've never see anyone standing in line for a Samsung Phone.... of course, perhaps I don't get out enough.

I saw this ad earlier and I think its pretty dumb. There is a huge difference between what Apple and Samsung are selling, and for Samsung to advertise a comparison seems to indicate they think consumers are pretty stupid to think an Apple buyer/fan will "grow up" to Samsung. The main difference should be obvious to anyone that knows their is a clear distinction here, which is Android. After that, those who are more informed consumers, such as us here on S4GRU, know that Android on Samsung means Touchwiz, Grace UI, the vast layers of Samsung bloatware, carrier bloatware, etc. The Apple fans of us know the downsides to Android, the different processing capabilities with Apple being much faster generally than Qualcomm processors in Samsung devices, and a bunch of other issues.

There simply is no such thing as "advancing" "progressing" or whatever from an Apple device to a Samsung device. To some (such as myself), its the other way around (no offense, S4GRU Android fans).

8 minutes ago, kamiller42 said:

I am confused by Son's latest comments. Now, after the failed merger, they say they'll invest serious money into Sprint network. Softbank has owned Sprint for 5 years. 

What happened last 5 years? Spending just enough to get by? Are they saying NOW they are serious about rebuilding Sprint?

This is what confuses me about Softbank and partly why I'm not impressed at all by the new Altice deal.

I like Sprint and would really like to see the company owned by a more competent group overseeing Sprint. Surely Softbank has done well in other situations, but not so much with Sprint.

However, if Altice and the other cable companies partner/merge, anything that can sell wireless service evenly across the country and they all have a part of Sprint, if this is something Masa knows about that isn't obviously being publicized, then I will call him a genius if he gets Sprint involved in this way while still keeping Softbank a part of it.

That is the only arrangement that would be a better deal for Sprint than joining with T-Mobile at this point. The move into cable though may not come soon enough, which perhaps will lead into another T-Mobile merger deal.

25 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

This is both growth and densification. Sprint can grow and densify on the Altice footprint... which is pretty substantial. Altice currently has more than 4.9 Million customers in 21 states through brands including Optimum and Suddenlink. What this agreement means is that Sprint can readily deploy wireless equipment using Altice's backhaul and its existing right of ways, and Sprint's network can grow and densify as Altice's network grows. Also, because Sprint is paying Altice for usage on the network, Altice has every incentive to increase its footprint to cover more areas.

This isn't a replacement for Macro Site growth. As Tarek said on the call, this is in parallel. The Lendlease Towers deal that SoftBank is entering is part of this network growth strategy. It's another prong.

Well, we'll see how this gets developed and such.

I'm still not really supportive of cable company involvement at this point, though eventually it could be promising. Using wifi is something that could be of good use in situations further away from the macro site with cable wifi connections handing off as mobile moves around. Although I still don't want this to be the thing for any wireless carrier to say "Look, we don't need to densify with more macro sites since we have cable wifi to add coverage".

I see it just as I do with small cell development and wonder why all the fuss against wifi years ago when since then its been these cell companies suddenly welcoming wifi to save development money when back then they were worried about wifi costing them money. Overall, I'd much rather see fewer national cell companies sticking with macro cell development and leave small cell, along with high band spectrum to local companies that can focus on stuff like wisp services and allow communities to get into it, expanding partnerships locally.

8 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Great news!

Is this new network investment as in actual growth of the network, or just maintenance and upkeep spending, and things like Magic Box, etc.?

I know the Magic Box seems popular around here, and it does have its benefits. However, it isn't a replacement for macro site growth and the kind of network growth that was talked about in various announced projects some years ago when Dan Hesse was still with Sprint.

Softbank ought to be revealing those kind of network plans with massive national scope, not just an MVNO deal, which this really sounds to be not much more than that, except for a bit of a network boost in areas Altice serves. Not so good for the rest of the country without Altice.

From PocketNow :

http://pocketnow.com/2017/11/05/sprint-and-altice-tie-up-partnership-as-softbank-pours-money-into-carrier

"Charter, which had been in Sprint’s reticle for an acquisition, will start an MVNO service on top of Verizon network in the near future. Comcast also uses that network for its Xfinity Mobile operation."

This makes me think even more about the potential behind a Comcast/Charter partnership or merger that could lead to something similar with Verizon later on. If there were that, or a merger, the two cable companies could increase their wifi spots and create a mobile wifi handoff network in tandem with using Verizon's network to create a massively dense wireless network that would free up alot of Verizon's already heavily utilized spectrum, without having to search for ways to get added spectrum or merge with another wireless company, such as Sprint.

I still think something is going to happen where Sprint ends up involved with a group of cable company ownership in order to provide bundles to Sprint customers throughout the country. This could work without having a merger of the cable companies, but small percentage purchases into Sprint, possibly also allowing Softbank a percentage of ownership in Sprint along with the cable companies, where Sprint could be seperate from Verizon, but still share the network and spectrum.

Whether that or a more full merger happens, I don't know, but it would be great for Sprint. If Altice got involved that way, I could see their part with Sprint as a good thing too. However, just being an MVNO is not that big nor great of a deal regarding Sprint itself, except for giving a wireless option to Altice customers. The Charter MVNO deal with Verizon being the same thing. This really is the best cable companies can offer until they either partner in for national bundles through a wireless carrier, they do this through the sharing of national cable lines, or have a massive national merger.

3 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

Softbank has provide various amounts of capital to Sprint it the earlier years https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sprint-softbank/japans-softbank-snaps-up-sprint-in-20-billion-deal-idUSBRE89A0I520121015, and more through indirect channels in recent years.  Look back at this: http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904034104578060690989363534

You forget about Tiger teams with the softbank engineers going to numerous individual sites.

To achieve what you wanted, Sprint would have been fully merged into Softbank communications division.  Don't forget that Softbank overall is best described as a conglomerate/venture capital firm.

Somewhere along the line I heard that Sprint couldn't use that money for anything on its network development. However prior to my seeing that, I figured that money could and I use to bring that up here too, but I got responses just as I have several times over the years saying that Softbank couldn't fund Sprint for various reasons.

Still, I'd really like it if perhaps someone with inside knowledge or a greater understanding of the situation even than the most of us could perhaps address the issue fully, and explain Softbank's funding role, etc., along with what we could expect to see from them.

Your information is pretty compelling though and I don't fully doubt Softbank if there are restrictions, except for what then would have me question their role getting involved with Sprint to begin with.

44 minutes ago, Johnner1999 said:

 

 

Too late.

But on a serious note Dan knowingly walked into a mess. And did everything reasonably sound. But he also was his own worse enemy at times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Dan Hesse obviously inherited a job that was left to him as a mess by his competitors. So, I really don't blame him for what was beyond the scope of what he could do to help Sprint. I don't even blame Marcelo Claure for Sprint's financial problems either. Mostly I like Claure, though I don't think he's as good a CEO of Sprint than Dan Hesse was (I'm not judging the CEO role of either of their capabilities in general, only in charge of Sprint). Although I have had some criticisms of Claure in the past, I've become more focused in my thinking of Softbank as Sprint's main problem.

I really don't know if Claure is responsible or not for the network delays, but looking at it like I have been lately, my guess is that Claure's only flaw in this is his reluctance to get help from Softbank. Sprint has lost alot of customers and sadly I have to agree with some of the anti-Sprint people who criticize Sprint for the free year of service offer, because it really isn't a good business decision to do. Better to offer free trial periods, say perhaps extending to 90-day trials with leased "loaner" devices to potential future customers who are unsure about the network quality, etc.

However, if Softbank were to have intervened by spending money on the network immediately after getting Sprint, they could have stopped the flow of churn with people leaving Sprint for network reasons, then with a strong Sprint in place, could have then focused on the spending cuts, etc and in making Sprint strong on its own. Sprint didn't need austerity right then, it needed massive funding. The lack of financial input on the network has lost Sprint customers over to T-Mobile and the non-uncarriers. Dan Hesse though with his spending plans may have worsened Sprint financially for a while, but would have turned Sprint's fortunes around later on.

Softbank didn't support that, didn't support that, didn't want to spend on Sprint, other than getting Sprint merged with T-Mobile. When that didn't happen at first, it made Masa sad, when all he had to do otherwise was to take the money he was prepared to use to buy T-Mobile during the early deal talks before DT gained so much confidence and support behind T-Mobile, and spend that money on Sprint. Imagine those billions of dollars behind massive macro tower site densification and all of that additional band 41 deployment. Sprint would be doing splendidly by now with that. Still, I think Marcelo probably really wants this too, just like Dan Hesse did, but its a matter of dealing with Softbank that is the issue.

10 minutes ago, ITK79 said:

 

 

In many of your post you continue to state that Softbank needs to do more and fund these things for Sprint. It has been mentioned by many others that Softbank can't fund, hand money to, or pay off Sprint's debt. The acquisition of Sprint was structured in a way to make Sprint recover itself.

It has also become clear that if Son wanted out of Sprint he would have just accepted an offer and washed his hands of it. Son wants to turn Sprint around quickly and to do this a merge with another company where he has a controlling interest is the best option.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 

 

I've seen alot of speculation online regarding excuses and reasons why Softbank hasn't funded Sprint, such as what you've said here, along with people stating Softbank's Insurance won't allow it, the stockholders won't allow it, the banks Softbank does business with/has accounts in won't allow it, and many other things. So if Son is intent on having things turn around for Sprint regarding the network, he sure made things difficult by not ensuring his company could fund Sprint and get Sprint improved quickly.

Surely, Sprint's financials have improved do what over the years due to the work of employees at Sprint (not Softbank), yet from what I've read online, Sprint still is in debt. However, it has been announced by Sprint (again, not Softbank) that a bunch of network spending finally is planned to happen. This is great news if it happens, and being that this is news coming from Sprint itself, I do have some faith it might happen, which again if it does and band 41 begins to work really well as I've experienced in a town near to where I reside (Schaumburg, Illinois), Sprint will have a great opportunity to really thrive.

Still, besides my bit of hope, I remain highly skeptical, and not because of anything from Sprint necessarily, but the fact I've seen such little support from Softbank where I believe this may even impact Sprint's ability to do this. Back when Dan Hesse was still in charge under Softbank after the deal occurred with Softbank, there were some big projects planned for Sprint's network that never ended up happening. I'm not sure the exact reason why this was, but if it had to do with Sprint's finances as I've heard, then surely Softbank ought to have funded it to keep Sprint's network growing so to avoid all the customer losses that has occurred since T-Mobile launched Uncarrier.

FYI, I'm a bit of a Dan Hesse defender, as I don't believe he was so bad of an executive at Sprint that some people claim he is. For Sprint's problems, I blame those who were there before him, just as much or greater than I blame Softbank for not helping Sprint. Yet despite the issues associated with Network Vision, at least it happened and Dan Hesse kept Sprint stable. Without NV, Sprint would be really bad right now. Same goes if Sprint didn't have band 41. Now I'm not sure if these network projects planned still would have gone through if Dan Hesse stayed at Sprint, but I believe he would have tried, whereas Marcelo seems to be the type to go along with Softbank, which this focus on monetary stability at the cost of less network development has in turn helped propel T-Mobile's siphoning away at Sprint's customers.

I'll stop for now before this post gets too long. But to add quickly, I'm not saying acting fiscally conservative necessarily is a bad thing, and Sprint certainly needed some of this, but not at the cost of the network.

If Sprint actually does the network additions, undoubtedly it'll be great for Sprint, and I'd love to see Sprint succeed with it. Out of all the carriers, one of the things I've really liked about Sprint was going back to when they were promoting Sprint Spark as three bands, nationwide. It was very telling and great for consumers because here it was Sprint basically saying, "This is our network, across the country", information that was easy for any customer to find out. Whereas other carriers are a mishmash of different spectrum that can vary in different areas, not speaking of spectrum amounts, but variable bands.

Sprint however, despite my objection where areas in the country can have different amounts of spectrum, something I really want carriers to remedy for more even amounts across the country, other than say the act of categorizing population size in areas then assigning spectrum appropriately though still ending the disproportionate nature of spectrum amounts that exist currently, I'm glad that at least Sprint has taken an effort on being more streamlined with the spectrum they have. Certainly they need to deploy it, but also densify to the point the spectrum is fully accessible/usable.

The only problem in Sprint doing this, as I've been saying, isn't so much Sprint's fault but that of Softbank, which really should be helping to fund this, yet they'd rather chase after a merger. Not to say I don't understand this, I do to a degree, but only if its another wireless company with existing infrastructure and spectrum. So unless Charter still is in this with Comcast, where there is a chance at integrating a Verizon merger someday, Softbank might as well accept the deal offer DT made for them, or else be ready to really spend on growing Sprint's network.

21 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

Un-usual™ Un-merger™ 2.0

AJ

I wonder if in the next few days the news will announce an un-cease in the merger talks deciding an unending to their merger talks. Becoming the never ending un-partnership of sorts.

22 minutes ago, bill875 said:

And Donald Trump is on his way to Japan this afternoon.  Any coincidence?  I think not .

Unless the Trump Organization plans on purchasing Sprint and turning Sprint yellow into Trump gold, along with promising to make Sprint great again by advertising Trump's name on everything Sprint sells, his image on every bit of Sprint signage, calling Sprint's unlimited.plan The Trump Gold Unlimited Plan, Sprint stores where there is a giant wall in front of where some yuge Russian mafia bodybuilder male stands guard requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to enter, and all the employees look sad, very sad, because they don't get paid very well and always fear getting fired by their "official" boss, Jared Kushner.

34 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

        Both Sprint and T-Mobile officially announced they are ending merger talks.   What? Really...  Yes!     

It happened just as the news reports said it would, regarding the notion of official announcements being made.

Despite some confusion/misunderstanding between Robert and I in our posts briefly conversing about the announcement issue, I do agree with him about how it didn't make sense there would be official announcements about the deal being cancelled, particularly since there wasn't any official announcements from these companies regarding the deal being discussed in the first place. Indeed all the insider discussion was in the news, and of course tech blogs and forums, such as where people such as myself love to speculate about mergers and acquisitions.

4 minutes ago, IamMrFamous07 said:

I feel like he has no choice now but to do this. The next upcoming months will be interesting. 

1 minute ago, Johnner1999 said:

 

Except if he wanted to dump Sprint he would have today.

It seems none of us have a clue here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Masa has tried selling Sprint many times, according to reports online, but he didn't get anywhere with that. Now he's had a chance to do so with T-Mobile, but from reports now it sure sounds like DT was perfectly willing and ready to approve a deal, but he's not happy with it because he wants some part of it. Really what is it going to be?

While I'm pretty much anti-Softbank at this point, I like many here were pretty excited about Softbank buying into Sprint a few years ago, which I certainly believed they were going to pour money into Sprint's densification and massively do so, along with spectrum deployment. After my very positive experience using Sprint in a band 41- rich environment, I fully believed that effort, along with the massive amount of band 41 spectrum, would make Sprint a very dominating, powerful force in wireless, of which I certainly was looking forward too.

Yet that hasn't happened. I really don't blame Sprint for it, never had, and I believe Sprint employees would love for this to happen, though sadly there has been the unfortunate monetary situation hindering Sprint's progress. Although I've been looking towards Softbank to do something about it, and they really haven't. Instead, they are busy trying to unload Sprint while spending millions and billions of dollars buying other companies, money that easily would have turned Sprint around and made it the awesome company it really can be.

Yet now Masa wants power after all this...

Just now, derrph said:

 

Agreed. Would be nice to buy out the remaining portion of Sprint, take them private and pour some money into the network and help pay down the debt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If Son is serious about this and truly is going to finance Sprint, that would be great. I just don't believe he's going to after all these times he's been trying to get rid of Sprint.

27 minutes ago, IamMrFamous07 said:

Can Charter and Comcast help Sprint accelerate band 41 deployment so Comcast’s Xfinity Mobile phones can have access to band 41 too?

 

If they can help Sprint densify their 2.5 spectrum, then it will be a great win for all of them. Also band 41 would be able to handle both Sprint users and Xfinity Mobile users. 

 

Just my opinion.

I'm curious if Charter's deal being discussed with Sprint now still includes Comcast, or not. I really doubt the deal will happen with just Charter alone, and I also doubt Charter's involvement, unless together with Comcast, is going to help at all regarding band 41 deployment and densification.

Softbank is making a huge mistake if they think Charter is a better deal for Sprint than going with T-Mobile. I'm not bashing Sprint at all here by saying this, but regarding Softbank it seems like a huge blunder to reject DT's offer while expecting Charter to be a better deal, because why? Masa gets a bit more say supposedly with a Charter merger? If so, then Softbank isn't caring a bit about Sprint, but rather themselves and their own company in Japan.

This is just part of why I really dislike Softbank's involvement with Sprint and I fully believe Sprint would be better off with another company owning it, except for cable - unless its a combined Charter/ Comcast deal where there is a stronger chance for national cable coverage along with the possibility of a Verizon merger into it with Sprint.

Well, my belief why this termination in the merger plans, despite whatever Sprint and T-Mobile say about "mutual terms", is the real issue had less to do about that and more to do with regulatory approval. Surely there was a strong possibility the deal would have been approved by regulators in this pro-business political administrative environment, but I think both companies considered the possibility of having to give up alot of valuable spectrum in the process, due to the immense amount of additional spectrum the combined entity would have had in contrast comparison with AT&T and Verizon.

I even went through a short time where I though maybe the spectrum differences wouldn't matter so much to regulators, until I got to thinking about non-competitive issues such as governmental connections to AT&T and Verizon, and how much of a disadvantage this merger would be to them in regards to spectrum. I was going to include my figuration in my earlier post here about what I believe might happen with the merger to get approval based on spectrum and what the combined company could do with that, but I wanted to end that post as it got quite long.

I'll mention it here now for what its worth, despite the merger being cancelled. I believe T-Mobile and Sprint would have fought to keep band 41 as is, which likely would mean losing low-band and mid-band spectrum. My thought is if they managed to then go after Dish, as I think eventually would have been considered, the combined companies would have to give up all mid-band spectrum, other than two bands of which through negotiations with other carries arranging spectrum swapping/selling and regulatory approval, the combined company might have ended up with national 20x20 in the 1900mhz, along with Dish's AWS-4, then giving away all low-band spectrum, other than the 600mhz band, trading in areas with less of it so to form a national 20x20 600mhz.

That would have given the combined company, say band 41 were to be divided evenly between down and up, 100mhz of download spectrum and 100mhz of upload spectrum. That still is quite a spectrum advantage over AT&T and Verizon. Again, I believe this was an issue that doesn't appear to be talked about in the tech media covering this. Its also a major reason why I think T-Mobile would get a much better regulatory deal with Dish without having to give up much spectrum, along with a fairly quick approval. Since AT&T got Directv under the Obama administration, T-Mobile getting Dish under the Trump Administration should be a breeze. 

17 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

I’d love to hear more about this as well.

As for the 8 and 8 Plus, since the back is now glass instead of aluminum, I wonder how that affects the antenna design vs. the 7.

I think it would be great for a full rf article on the new iPhone lineup in an article the kind that S4GRU staff use to write for the site. I really liked those articles, as they were very informative and a greatly supportive in helping to determine rf quality and the value of buying certain devices for those wanting to know the signal quality of a smartphone. I, as many here likely do, we care alot about signal quality, which sadly doesn't seem to receive much attention in spec reports and smartphone reviews online nowadays. This would be a great feature to bring back to S4GRU 

6 hours ago, greenbastard said:

Is it just a coincidence that Trump is visiting Japan this weekend as well???

Perhaps so, perhaps not. Although, the more I hear about the positive meetings between the two, the more likelihood I believe there will be that regulators will approve this merger. I use to be skeptical about regulatory approval of it under the Obama administration, which had regulators already voicing their concerns and opposition. Enough so, that the merger attempt was delayed by Softbank in the hopes that a different administration more supportive of the merger would result from the 2016 Presidential election. Despite Marcelo Claure supporting Hillary Clinton for President, I seriously doubt regulators in her administration would have approved of the merger.

When Trump won, I believed the merger seemed more likely to be approved, unless a counter merger offer was made by AT&T, in which I still believe could happen if AT&T made a very enticing offer to DT, enough so to offset the increased interest in T-Mobile DT has gained from T-Mobile's growth and success during the past few years that has caused DT to lose most of the interest they once greatly had in selling T-Mobile. This seems to have affected Sprint and Softbank's ability to successfully negotiate a deal with terms that fully satisfy Softbank's agenda for this merger, due to DT being so unwilling to split away from T-Mobile nowadays.

Yet now that things are the way they are with T-Mobile being very successful and Sprint still not well, while according to news reports Softbank has had great difficulty trying to sell Sprint, it appears Softbank may not have the bargaining power enough to keep much of a controlling interest in Sprint that may have been a factor in the failed attempts to sell Sprint. Now with the merger possibility with T-Mobile, it appears Softbank may be realizing it doesn't have enough bargaining power to get exactly what they want from such a deal. Yet, considering the massive long-term benefits of the deal, it may simply be too good for Softbank to pass by. The speculation of Softbank dropping the deal likely is the result of Softbank trying to pursue as much benefit to them they can get out of the deal without having DT/T-Mobile call it off.

Right now, T-Mobile is doing very well, and much less needs this merger than does Sprint. Still, DT/T-Mobile very likely realize how advantageous this merger deal is for them, which probably is the reason for their willingness to negotiate with terms allowing Softbank some amount of control, influence, and power within the combined T-Mobile/Sprint company. Whereas a merger deal with AT&T most likely would mean a full sale of T-Mobile over to AT&T, which isn't favorable to DT. However, if the Sprint deal were not to happen, regardless of my suspicions of AT&T possibly making a counter offer for T-Mobile during the Sprint merger regulatory process, I still believe an AT&T attempt for T-Mobile may occur.

This could end up in a situation where AT&T becomes the anti-cable company if they buy Dish to combine with Directv and get T-Mobile for the added network and spectrum to have a full range of these services which compete with the possible pro-cable company of Verizon combined with Comcast/Charter and Sprint. In the process Sprint may also get US Cellular. This would be a situation of the "big two" , which would happen under a very pro-business regulatory environment. While the Trump administration may allow this, I believe they would find preferable as a compromise between being pro-business and merger-friendly with also preserving some level of consumer protection through competition by allowing Sprint and T-Mobile to merge, which may include Dish, as competition against AT&T, while Verizon likely will go with the cable route.

I also wanted to reiterate my viewpoint on how spectrum might be reallocated, etc. in my writing this post, but I wrote long enough here detailing my other points. I apologize for the length. I'll write about the spectrum in another post later on.