utiz4321

I thought it was the lower end of dish's existing spectrum that the FCC imposed power limitations on. Sprint would want it to have nation wide 10x10 lte.

I second that but if not a s4 or htc one tri-ban phone would work as well!

Does anyone else think that dish's next move will be to bid on pcs h block? This might be the cheapest way for them to force sprint back to the table and deal with them on a network deal. Sprint wants/needs pcs h and I think it is contiguous with dish spectrum (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) so it has value to them beyond just leverage. Given dish's track record I can see the pcs h auction being another opportunity to cause headaches for sprint. Also, I thought the FCC was going to auction off pcs h this year but haven't heard anything about it recently, is that still the plan or has that changed?

Site spacing isn't the whole story with AT&T's lte. Since AT&T uses 850 or 1900 for voice (depending on location) they have made the decision to design their lte network coverage mimic their voice coverage. They don't want their customer's phones to show they have a signal and not be able to make a phone call. I agree with their logic, however it puts them in a position where they have the capacity of a 700 MHz network and the effective lte coverage of 1900 or 850. With sprint because they provide voice service over both 800 and 1900 there will be no need for them to try to match voice coverage of higher frequency with lower frequency lte signals. This is really where sprint has a leg up and the real advantage of the network vision program. Basically, it takes heterogenous networks and frequencies and makes them work more homogeneously maximizing network efficiently.

So it looks like all dish managed to accomplish is to make sprint and softbank use more of the capital paying off shareholders rather than investing in the business. I would be curious if that gets them there network partner they have been after the whole time.

Engadget has not been good at all when covering sprint's NV. Lots of incorrect info, to the point I don't even read them any more. The verge has been pretty good though.

That is not exactly correct. Everyone had to go to 850. We signed a roaming agreement with tmobile that gave us access to the 1900 MHz for a number of years so that customer with 1900 only handset wouldnt be left out in the cold and we would have time to fill in 850, but Cingular converted people like crazy to the 850 network. There was no choice given, when a customer got new equient they went on the new network. If Cingular kept any 1900 MHz (at least in Northern California where I worked) I don't know what they are or did do with it as their network doesn't use 1900 there, to the best of my knowledge any way.

I didn't work on the network side of things, but it was right after Cingular bought AT&T mobile in California. We had to divest all of the 1900 MHz spectrum and tmobile had bought it. Whenever a customer would go from 850 to 1900 it would drop. No real problems switch between 850 towers though.

I had a chance to put the question of hard hand offs to the presenter of the network vision webinar back when sprint was first trying to explain NV. When I worked for AT&T 9 years ago or so I know they had problems with hard handoffs and dropping calls, but the presenter assured us in the webinar that the industry had lots of experiance in limiting the number of drop calls during a hard handoff. If this is true this issue will more than like be fixed.

I had a chance to put the question of hard hand offs to the presenter of the network vision webinar back when sprint was first trying to explain NV. When I worked for AT&T 9 years ago or so I know they had problems with hard handoffs and dropping calls, but the presenter assured us in the webinar that the industry had lots of experiance in limiting the number of drop calls during a hard handoff. If this is true this issue will more than like be fixed.

So it was just report that soft bank is looking at t-mobile as plan b. if so and fish gets sprint I see sprint lingering in the full drums until they final get bought out.

I am really begaining to loath dish. From what I can see the only reason they made this offer is to tie up sprint network plans until sprint agrees to Build dish's network on dish's terms. I thought that was blackmail, but I guess companies can get away with that kind of behavior. I will never use a dish product or service even if they gain control of sprint I so loath them.

If dish gains all of the minority shares they would still be a minority share holder faced with all the same restrictions that the current minority share holders face (best case). They would not gain clear or its network, this is what doesn't make sense. I think the chances of clear going bankrupt are really high if dish is successful, in a biding process and newly capitalized sprint (which seems to have the highest value for the 2.6 ) should be able to win a large chuck of the spectrum easily and possible cheaper than 3.4 per share + debt. Dish is unlikely to bid on the spectrum (at least as high as sprint would) because they would be in the same spot, spectrum and no network. Verizon might want to bid but given their current spectrum portfolio I can't see it being as valuable to them as sprint. AT&T might be the real threat, but I think sprint might let bankruptcy happen. If sprint continues to fund clear where does that leave dish? In a dead stock and still no network while sprint has clear deploy their "hotspot" tdd-lte network. It is still a mess and I can't see dish walking away improved.

If that is true that makes even less sense (and I don't doubt that it is true, I just haven't read that yet) since dish would gain clear if their sprint bid is accepted at a lower price if clear was to accept sprint's bid. If dish fails in it's sprint bid all they end up with is a minority position in a company that has a good chance of going bankrupt and seeing sprint trying to pick up spectrum in a post bankrupt fire sell. I am seriously have trouble with just the logic of this move.

According to the FCC paper work it will only have lte band 25. That is a deal breaker for me, I will not buy another sprint phone with only 1900 lte.

I really loath dish. They know their offer will not be accepted by sprint unless they offer to wildly over pay. This offer of 4.40 is just to make sure sprint doesn't succeed in taking full control of clear. Which is an odd manuver if they expect their bid for sprint to go through. If dish was confident (or making a real play) of their sprint offer wouldn't they want sprint to pick clear up as cheap as posible? If their sprint bid goes through and the minority clear investors shoot down sprint's offer then the new dish/sprint won't have the capital to take control of clear and dish loses out. The only thing that makes sense is dish doesn't want sprint (or doesnt think that they will be able to get sprint) or clear but wants keep sprint from taking full control of 2.6 forcing sprint to dump money into clear or sell some 2.6 and thus be open to a partnership with dish. Or maybe they believe that SoftBank will back out if sprint can't close clear or perhaps they would be fine with either. Either way I loath dish, they are singal handedly messing up the chance for sprint to be competitive company and solidifying our duopoly.

Japan has been a close ally since the end of ww2, this is nothing more than protectionist bs in my opinion.

I am not saying no one needs 32 mbps, I am asking what the difference is in user experience between 4mbps and 32mbps is from a smartphone. My answer is none, really. From my conclusion you can infer that no one needs 32mbps on their smart phone but that is not what I said. There is no noticeable difference between the two on a smart phone (with similar pings). A person who doesn't know mbps that there phone is using will not notice a difference and so focusing so narrowly on mbps is a wast of time in my opinion. The user experience is the key, does it do what you want and well? If yes good, if no bad, really simple.

This thing about who has the fastest speeds is a bit over misleading. What is the difference between 4 mbps and 32 mbps from a smart phone or tablet? Maybe if you where teathering to a laptop or multiple devices but all the carriers have limited data while teathering so what's the point? Hd video to a smartphone required 2 mbps and that is the most data intense thing I can think about that a smartphone is capable of.

80 includes the ten dollar premium data. If you can be ok with calling only 450 min to landlines, on week days between 7am-7pm. For my part I use on average 2 min a month. That is not true for every one though and some people need to be able to call land lines but a lot do not.

A couple of things. One you will pay full price on a phone for tmobile. They allow you to finance the phone using you monthly bill over two years but you end up paying more that if you bought the phone retial at another carrier. You can do no contract with sprint if you are a current customer you pay retail for the phone. If you are set on doing that tmobile offers lower rate plans, but not by much when you factor in the phone subsidies that you for go.

Don't read too much on sprint asking FCC to continue its review. It improve's sprint bargaining position with dish and other offers have little to do with what the FCC has regulatory authority over. It doesn't mean sprint is more or less incline to reject dish's offer.

Good? Hope you are happy with cricket.

That is why I used the term if dish's deal is better than softbank's, it is not obvious either way. In the end it will come down to equity holders and people who get paid a hell of a lot figuring out guesses on valuations of these two offers. Ps the board of directors of any publically traded company has one function and that is to maximize share holder value. That is it, that is their function. No law degree is required to know that, just a passing knowledge of modern American cooperate structor.

I think my opinion is with the majority on this thread. SoftBank has a proven track second in the wireless space and dish has no experiance. SoftBank would be a better match for sprint and better for the wireless industry as a whole. Unfortunately, sprint might not have any choice in the matter. If dish's offer is better for Sprint's share holders sprint is require by law to take it.