IrwinshereAgain

I am encouraged by the fact that Google Fi is able to run on both Sprint and T-Mobile already. Unlike the old Nextel network that we could never integrate properly. Looks like the technology is there to hit the ground running this time. Still a lot of work to actually merge and shut down Sprint, but looks like a transition path could be available.

I think the big bad corporations are ATT and their 98 subs including CNN, Time Warner, HBO etc. Verizon counts as a big bad corporation also. Sprint, by comparison, not so much. But that is just my take on it.

Does this merger put some or most of Dish's spectrum in service either by Dish or via lease to T-Mobile?

As part of the Softbank purchase of Sprint, they were restricted to the max percentage of Stock they could own. If they went over that limit, they are required to buy up all of the remaining stock. I can try to find a reference if someone else does not post it first.

As I understand it, if Softbank wanted to put an extra 5 Billion Dollars in Sprint, they would also have to buy up the remaining shares of Sprint stock they did not already own. How much would it actually cost to add/upgrade enough towers, add/upgrade backhaul, and acquire enough low band to have a network anywhere near the networks of the big two?

You may be right. I just thought that the New TMobile would still have less customers, less towers, less low band, less backhaul and less available cash. If true, then wouldn't that translates into a higher cost of business per unit of income, already? Just asking.

It almost looks like an attempt to weaken the combined company to prevent any real competition for V and ATT.

I know everyone has different needs. 30-50 download and 20-40 upload seem to be sufficient for me. Coverage is my biggest concern. I hate to get out on the highway somewhere and not get a signal.

The Att and TMobile merger would have left us with 2 large carriers and an underfunded Sprint. The Sprint and T-Mobile merger could provide a third strong competitive carrier. That seems like the difference to me. Is there another way to look at it?

Is it true that Sprint would need double the number of towers as Verizon and ATT to get the same coverage due to their lack of low band?

I don't see a standalone Sprint as a major competitor to the big two. A merger with Dish or someone else would probably take some significant time. The big winners would be the Verizon and ATT. Not sure that is best for the consumer. Just my opinion.

Didn't SoftBank have a provision where they would be required to buy all of the Sprint stock if they ever went over the 85% mark? I thought that was why they couldn't just put more money into Sprint. Just asking.

Thank you for the update.

Would Sprint have the money to implement 5g with their debt and low customer count? Just asking.

There are many phones out there that have all of the necessary bands to roam on either network. They range from inexpensive phones like my moto E series up to my lg7.