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. 

2 hours ago, RedSpark said:

That’s exactly right. If we are being told by Sprint that as of June 5th (http://newsroom.sprint.com/triband-upgrades.htm), that Band 41 is only on 60% of its Macro sites currently.... and that it won’t be until April/May 2019 (End of Fiscal 2018, based on prior reporting dates).... what should be our expectations for network improvement over that time?

Furthermore, what does “substantial majority” mean? How close is it to 100%? When does this hit 100%? By Fall/Winter of next year?

What’s frustrating here is that we all knew this needed to happen for the Sprint network to improve to competitive parity. However, Marcelo told us back in September 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/18/technology/sprint-network/index.html) that:

Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure has made a bold statement: By 2017, its network will perform better than Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile.

"We will have the best network in the next two years," Claure told CNNMoney in an interview Friday. 

That echoes comments Claure made in May, when he said Sprint would be among the "top two" in terms of overall network performance in the United States. Now, he is throwing down the gauntlet, saying Sprint will leapfrog all the competition.

Wow. Not only was he wrong. He was completely wrong. Sprint has 2.5 GHz on only 60% of its Macro sites at this point. There was no possible way this was ever going to happen given the Capex spend and deployment timeline, but he told the market and us consumers this anyway.... and I feel like a bit of a fool for believing it.

Only way Sprint’s Network leapfrogs now is a merger...

Or we wait for Sprint to grind along on its own and keep watching the calendar for the next year or so.

This makes me sad as a customer, and mad as an investor.

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. 

1 hour ago, greenbastard said:

Can we just drop this excuse already? Because it looks like Verizon and T-Mobile aren't hindered by this one bit. 

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. 

4 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

Are you not counting the mmwave holdings of AT&T and Verizon? Or the fact that there will be a lot of spectrum that is being opened up in the CBRS, 3.7-4.2GHz, 6GHz band? 

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.

Just now, red_dog007 said:

8 major carriers? There are only 5 major spectrum holders, and one of them isn't even a carrier.  How would the New-TMobile truly benefit customers having twice the spectrum as the next holder (if they don't have to shed assets for the merger) when both TMobile and Sprint already have loads of unused or under utilized spectrum. Even VZW/ATT still have increasing speeds, with spectrum not on LTE yet or have unused / under utilized spectrum. 

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. 

4 hours ago, red_dog007 said:

Instead of being glad with the merger, go to one of the three other carriers that will satisfy your needs.  

Especially with these large acquisitions, the consumers never win unless there are restrictions placed on the merger that directly benefit  or protect the consumers.

In this case, the only people who might benefit are Sprint customers.  But these guys could just switch providers if they really needed to change providers.

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!. 

5 hours ago, RedSpark said:

So the CFO lied?: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-cfo-robbiati-600-mhz-spectrum-past

“We did not participate in the 600 MHz (auction) not because we didn’t have money at the time, or we were under-resourced for it,” he said. “It is simply spectrum that is spectrum of the past. The world is moving toward high-capacity wireless data networks, and in that world the best and most efficient spectrum that is needed for that… is mid-band spectrum, the spectrum that we have, the 2.5 GHz spectrum.”

Robbiati also noted that the TV broadcasters’ airwaves currently up for grabs may not be available for several years. The FCC has issued a 39-month repacking plan for that spectrum, enabling the broadcasters to move to other airwaves while their former spectrum is reshuffled for wireless use.

“Why invest in 600 MHz spectrum if that spectrum doesn’t really cater for the future, and also it’s spectrum you cannot deploy for four years?” Robbiati asked rhetorically. “And it doesn’t have an ecosystem in support as widespread as 2.5 spectrum, which is the largest ecosystem in the world.”

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. 

2 hours ago, Mr.Nuke said:

I haven't ready his testimony and probably won't have a chance to until late tonight or tomorrow, but much like the FCC document, why is this a surprise? Part of the sell job to the regulators and anyone like congress that could potentially step in the way of this is that Sprint (and T-Mobile makes the same argument themselves in their portion of the FCC filing as well) are in precarious position going forward with significant competitive disadvantages to AT&T and Verizon.

 

Selling this, and specifically selling this angle is why Claure is no longer the CEO and why Combes and the rest of the executive team is on a cross country roadshow telling employees the exact opposite of what Claure is telling the regulators. It is all part of the dance.

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. 

3 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

The New T-mobile will end up with 85, 000. 10,000 Sprint sites and 10,000 new sites.

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

2 hours ago, bucdenny said:

10x10 along with 5x5 plus B41 being helpful in many area in San Diego.  10x10 is holding up pretty well, most area are usable data.  B26 couldn't come sooner, still weak B25 coverage indoors.

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

5 minutes ago, Flompholph said:

I know one way to covince me that the merger will be good for me. Call me unreasonable, stupid, really stupid, and lazy. 

If the merger goes through I will be jumping to ATT. 

Good call. 

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

2 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

The fact that you believe your word is the last one on this issue with your "Please dont comment" comment.says alot about the lackluster points you've put forth.

There is no silver bullet to solving the consumer benefit\corporate profits best case scenario, otherwise government approval would not be in question.

I will let this argument end with the more respectful "agree to disagree" 

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. 

1 minute ago, nexgencpu said:

Less competition is better for consumers..said no one ever!

You do not need a degree in economics to understand the basics of this. Also, as much as Sprint and T-Mobile try to convince government officials how they will die without this merger it simply is not true. I'm glad your happy that the "New Tmobile" excites you, but take a look at the CPU market and the great things Intel's dominance did from a consumer standpoint the past decade, overpriced reiterations of the same product.

Luckily AMD caught them with their pants down. Now Intel is a mad rush to just keep up.

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. 

5 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Dude! this is about corporate profits, it's a business. Sprint and T-Mobile going at it alone will force innovations and slow individual growth, that requires more time and money, more than Softbank is willing to divest.

Botton line, maximizing profits is there main concern. Not somehow magically improving service.

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. 

2 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

I believe from a business standpoint, yes! Who'd argue with removing one competitor, merge resources, cut cost, and potentially charge higher rates and lower Capex.

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. 

On 6/20/2018 at 9:32 AM, bookertdub said:

Fastest speeds I've received yet in the San Diego market on Sprint's network. Over near the Park Hyatt Aviara in Carlsbad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. 

3 hours ago, nexgencpu said:

Those FCC docs are all in place to "sell" the idea of the merger. So you better believe they are over blowing all of Sprint's inadequacies (and T-mobile's for that matter)

There's no question that they can both go at it alone (T-mobile especially) it would just not be nearly as fruitful from a business stand point. 

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. 

21 hours ago, Dkoellerwx said:

I'm not an expert in this kind of thing, but more customers is generally a good thing. And it's only a promo price, they won't get that price forever. 

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. 

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

Interesting survey results by HarrisX:

News Article: 22% of Americans support Sprint/T-Mobile merger, 59% on the fence

Company Blog Post: http://harrisx.com/2018/05/us-consumers-open-to-tmobile-sprint-merger/

Full Survey Results: http://harrisx.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/HXO002-TMobile-Sprint-Merger-05.20.18-vFinal.pdf

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

1 hour ago, Thomas L. said:

Of course neither AT&T nor Verizon are contesting this because they know it will decrease competition in the market which has put so much pressure on their margins and networks both. 

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

2 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

Nah I m just saying that based on past mergers some of them jad to divest some spectrum...so it's a high possibility....

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

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. 

16 hours ago, Dkoellerwx said:

I take issues with point 2 and 3. Clearly Sprint has turned things around. We've seen plenty of evidence this year of accelerated deployments, innovation in antenna/tower technology to speed things along, and new partnerships to get proper backhaul to more sites and small cells. Money and management have been issues in the past yes, and there may still be some kinks to iron out yet, but things are *much* better than they used to be. They fact that the committed 6 billion (or more) to capex for the next several years pre-merger should tell you that things are much better than they were.

Edited to add: You are not currently a sponsor, but if you were, you would be able to see the hundreds/thousands of site upgrades, and dozens (or more) sites *adds* that have been happening this year.

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. 

2 hours ago, Trip said:

I'm not sure I understand how that works.  Shentel builds out better than any other carrier.  They are the leader in their region, they don't rest on their laurels despite that, and they continue building out and upgrading at a ridiculous pace.  I'm not entirely sure how it is anti-innovation to want the company that clearly knows what they're doing to continue being able to do so.

- Trip

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

2 hours ago, Trip said:

Old expression:  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seems like it should apply here.

- Trip

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.  

5 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

No one is saying that. Upload limitations on B41 are due to the change in timing configuration.

Sprint should have waited for interband CA phones (B25+B41) or at the very least allowed intraband CA upload on B41. Changing the timing configuration made it hard (and sometimes impossible) to do trivial things such as sharing pictures or sending MMS with a weak signal. In places where I used to get 1-2 Mbps upload, I could no longer do video calls. Speed tests would even time out on the UL portion from time to time after getting 10 Mbps on the DL.

Upload speeds are more important than ever before in today's social climate (sharing everything we do). Sprint needs to address them if the merger doesn't go through.

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.