Jump to content

bigsnake49

S4GRU Member
  • Content Count

    3,316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

bigsnake49 last won the day on June 15

bigsnake49 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,707 Wireless Expert

About bigsnake49

  • Rank
    Member Level: LTE Advanced

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    iPhone6s, Nexus5X, MotoG5 Plus
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melbourne, FL/Springfield, MA
  • Here for...
    4G Information

Recent Profile Visitors

8,073 profile views
  1. And buying some of the network equipment?
  2. I usually don't like Moffett but he's right this time about surrendering so much to get a deal done: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dishs-rumored-interest-in-purchasing-t-mobilesprint-assets-isnt-sensible-for-anyone-involved-says-analyst-2019-06-17?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
  3. If I am Sprint/T-Mobile I will take my chances in the courts. All these concessions defeat the purpose of the merger.
  4. Do any of the experts around here how much of the Sprint network assets will be reusable by another carrier, eg the mythical 4th player, let's call them Dish? 1. EPC 2. eNodeB 3. RRH 4. Routers 5. Back-end infrastructure (customer facing and internal business servers)
  5. As long as they also buy Sprint's network assets and not just the spectrum and the prepaid subscribers. Dish does not need more spectrum. They need a network. Or have their spectrum hosted by the New T-Mobile.
  6. They do if the states don't have legal standing to sue in federal court which in this case they don't.
  7. They don't have any money. They spent it all on spectrum.
  8. No they are not strong arming him but he will probably lose a potential customer for his spectrum in T-Mobile if it merges with Sprint. He has absolutely no intention to deploy a nationwide network and he is just a spectrum speculator. I blame the FCC in allowing him to amass spectrum that he has no intention deploying.
  9. Good, get it over with quickly.
  10. HHI is a very flawed measurement. One of those examples from your link illustrates it: For example, assume an industry has 20 firms. Firm one has a market share of 48.59% and each of the 19 remaining firms has a market share of 2.71% each. The HHI would exactly 2,500, indicating a highly concentrated market. If firm number one had a market share of 35.82% and each of the remaining firms had a 3.38% market share, the HHI would be exactly 1,500, indicating a competitive marketplace. In both of those cases, you have a very high market share firm dominating the market place. If you applied the example to the wireless marketplace which has tremendous capital expenses every year and more so during generational deployments (3G-4G-5G), the high maketshare firm would quickly swamp the smaller firms since they don't have the scale to compete. Now if it was a low capital investment kind of market place then the smaller firms have a much better chance to survive and compete. If this merger is denied I think that Sprint will survive but never thrive or compete with the other 3 on anything but price which means that it cannot invest in its network to the degree that the other 3 can. It will fall behind. The big problem with wireless in this country is not rural deployments, it is suburban and exurban deployments. I do believe that you need about 60-65,000 macro sites to cover the urban/suburban/exurban areas even if you do roam on others for rural coverage. Sprint does not have the low and mid band spectrum that the other 3 have. Can they make up for it? Yes if they can host Dish's spectrum and Comcast's 600Mhz spectrum plus pick off some of the speculators 600Mhz spectrum. But Dish does not want to invest in a network or be a carrier particularly in a 4 carrier marketplace, they want to speculate on their spectrum. The big cable cos want to deploy CBRS and C-Band spectrum using stand mount and pole mount small cells. Can they be convince to host Sprint's 2.5 GHz small cells also ala Altice and Cox? Sure, there are some efforts here and there.
  11. Excellent article in fiercewirless as to why the T-Mobile/Sprint merger should be approved: https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/industry-voices-lowenstein-three-reasons-why-t-mobile-sprint-deal-should-be-approved
  12. I would countersue the states in a more conservative jurisdiction and a accuse them of gross overreach of authority on constitutional grounds. Remember that the states have no standing to sue on anti-trust grounds. The lower price argument also sounds shallow when you pledge no price increases on current plans for 3 years. The other major demand about rural coverage, again is gross overreach on the federal level. They can probably sue in state courts on those grounds but not in federal courts, no jurisdiction. I included it in my 7 bullet point concessions because it would be a throwaway for T-Mobile. They are expanding their rural coverage anyway so it would be an easy concession to make.
  13. The states have absolutely no anti-trust case. They might have a merger might eliminate a desperate, price bottom feeder (Sprint) case, if at that. This is a desperate attempt by the states to wring additional concessions. My 7 bullet points above should address most of the states' concern.
  14. The states have not gotten a TRO yet but according to the post they have a better chance of getting one. However if the DOJ approves the merger, then it would be embarrassing for the states to have sued when the DOJ approved it with provisions that already addressed their concerns, mainly lower prices. My legal strategy if I was Sprint is get the FCC's approval and then fight both the DOJ and attys general in court. There is absolutely no anti-trust concerns with this merger, not when the resulting company has only 25% of the wireless market revenue and whose customers are mainly prepaid bargain hunters.
×
×
  • Create New...