utiz4321

Wireless prices will definately increase without the merger and probably will with the merger. The question is what that increased cost is going to get you. Personally, I want it to pay for the killer network a combined company could produce.

In my opinion, Marcelo came very close to criminally lying to shareholders in 2015 and early 2016. He suggested that small cell network deployments were happening nationwide when it was only in parts of a few test markets and constantly stated inflated CAPEX number he had for the year that he had zero intent of hitting. I believed he was intentionally engaged in a confidence game to hit his bonus. After that period, I lost all confidence in him. The only reason no one complained is that the plan and the only plan was a Tmobile merger, because it is the only plan that will work for sprint. They need the stock above 8 so Mass could get the kind of deal he want. In the end they werent able to do it, so Masa gave up and is now getting the best deal he can.

Actually they are. All the carriers are further behind on their small cell plans because of NIMBYs, the bain of all human progress, just because sprint is further behind BECAUSE THEY LACK THE RESOUCES THAT NIMBYs IMPOSE on society doesnt mean that it isnt a MAJOR PROBLEM. I am sorry you are one, but it is probably one of the major reason sprint will fail as a independent concern.

No. Count them, divide by 8 then multiple the capex need to deploy such spectrum 8 times (because each would have to deploy) and what does that world look like? Certainly not as good as the market we have now.

Go back to 2000 and there were 8. The industry has gone through several waves of consolidation and each has been to the benefit of the consumer.

I dont get this idea. Consumer never win because of a merger? Excuse me, but you would have to explain why the consumer would be better served by having 8 major carriers and the current spectrum assets split up over 8 players. We wouldn't even have 3g!.

He mislead. They technically could have spent the money, but then they would have been screwed for resouces to deploy it and 2.5. They dont lie, they highlight what they want to. It is all sales.

They are not saying two different things. They are saying two different parts of the same story. Combs: we are investing 5-7 billion in out network for the next two years. Marcelo: we are but it will not likily change the overall market and we wont gain significant scale out of the investment. Combs: we are building a a 5g network with deep spectrum assets. Marcelo: yes we are, but it will be limited geographically to major metros and it wont penetrate buildings for crap. See? Same story, just different parts.

That network will be a beast once 600 is deployed. They will also have 40000 small cells.

I have noticed alot of mini macros that have help with the areas I go to.

Good call. Ps. I am not trying convince anyone the merger is good for any paticular person.

You were making arguements based out of ignorance and i called you out for that. I didnt claim my word was the last one, unlike you I don't claim to know the appropriate number of players in the wireless industry. You do and it is based on nothing but muh feels, clearly. Statements such as "yeah less competition is a good thing for consumers, said no one ever" is beyond ignorant.

Actually yes, economist say that all the time. I am sorry you are ignorant and dont even care to educate yourself but that really is your problem. In 2000 there we're 8 national carriers and like 7 regional ones and prices were higher,you had regional plans and all you had was voice and text. Just Take the current spectrum holdings and divide it up among 8 players, what the hell do you think 3g looks like let alone LTE? Please dont comment on subjects you have no understanding of, it is embarrassing.

Dude! Every business is about profits. Just because sprint and Tmobile's profits are helped by the merger doesnt mean that it isnt good for consumers. In fact if we get to three carriers because one goes bust that would be the worst situation for consumers. Wireless is an industry that has high returns to scale, that means the most efficient outcome for consumers is a market with a few players. I dont blame you, american schools, even colleges, are terrible at teaching economics unless you are getting a degree in it.

Lowe CAPEX? Try a shit ton of debt and not being able to gain scale to lower CAPEX. ATT and vzw both spend more on capex than sprint. The market would be better with three competitors instead of two and two also rans. Where does T mobile go with 5g? You'll see both sprint and T mobile get killed in the next 5 years. But hey, maybe you are smarter than the market and the combined decisions of 340 million consumers. Maybe, but I doubt it.

The San deigo market has improved a ton since a year ago. It they could do that for my home market I would be ecstatic.

And the quarterly earnings are there to sell sprint stock. The cant lie on either, so the smart move is to listen to both to fill in the story. They dont contradict each other, rather the tell different parts of the same story. Put them together and any reasonable person would side with the merger.

Each user has a cost to the company for them being a customer. It use to be called cash cost per user but I am not sure what they are calling it now. More customers are not always better if they cost you more to have than they pay in.

I dont see the point of these things. Mergers are not and should not be a matter of Democratic will.

Maybe, maybe not. Decreased competition doesnt always lead to higher margins for all players.

I dont think they will. This admin. Put promarket people in the FCC and DOJ. The FCC is judt going to rubber stamp it, the DOJ might question it a bit more but it will go through as is.

They dont have the money to build a competitive network and pay their debts. They can only grow through discounting meaning they would need to add massive amounts of customers to grow top line revenue. Where are they going to come from? Not VZW or ATT their customers that are price sensitive have already jumped to T mobile or sprint and sprint wont build a network that matches theirs. So for sprint to become health they would have to start taking a stick to T-mobile but that just reverses the current market we have. We are going to three players, you might have three players because of a bankruptcy or 3 players and a zombie fourth company lerching along but not relevant.

Just the statement "if it aint broke dont fix it". Not what it referred to.

That is an anti-innovation statement. Things can work and still be improved upon. The model T would work but i am glad someone decided to mess with it.

I cant think of one time sprint wasnt able to handle an upload. They know more about how people use their phones than you or I do.