bigsnake49

Yes, but the capacity advantage between four 5x5's and one 20x20 is not huge. The problem for Sprint is that they really don't have many places they can deploy four 5x5's. In those locations, they will heavily depend on Clearwire's LTE to carry tonnage. Which is not a bad position to be in at all. The big issue here isn't, "OMG, what about Sprint?" The big issue out there is, "OMG, what about AT&T?" Sprint's position is just fine in my estimation. Like Ian pointed out above.

 

Also, if memory serves, most of the people around here were happy when the MetroPCS/Sprint deal fell apart because the board rejected it. Especially our core members. The timing was bad for Sprint, but also PCS is nowhere near as good of a fit for Sprint as it is for Tmo.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Yes the timing was bad for Sprint then and it would have been bad for Sprint now because of their depressed stock price. I just hope that the Sprint board starts thinking strategically, not just operationally.

I know I am in a minority here when I say this, but having the ability to deploy four 5x5 carriers is just fine with me over a single 20x20. Even though there is a slight capacity gain with one 20x20 over four 5x5's, the big advantage is speed.

 

However, I'm not sold on faster and faster speeds. How fast do we need? Really? It's a penis size measuring contest.

 

A 5x5 LTE carrier that is not over burdened and properly spaced will offer 15-37Mbps download. That's screaming fast. Its faster than 90% of Americans have for a home ISP. The average American home internet speed is less than 6Mbps. Sprint just needs to keep deploying those 5x5 carriers timely to keep speeds up, IMO.

 

So maybe a 20x20 carrier can offer 90Mbps. Does it matter? Can you use it in a way that it improves your wireless functionality? Is it really a marketing advantage? So T-Mobile can say it has the fastest 4G LTE network as a tag line to its commercials. I say big whoop. Let them have their moniker.

 

What most people want is a network that meets/exceeds their needs. And Sprint will still be offering that. Most people at home do not choose the fastest internet service available. Because they know that even for home service they don't need something so blazing fast.

 

And for those of you who have this fascination with penis size, don't forget that Clearwire TD-LTE carriers coming online next year are 20MHz wide too. Expected to have 60-90Mbps DL speeds. So there will be many places on the network to be able to get extremely fast speeds. But I'm still not sure how useful super mega speeds are over mega speeds.

 

I think consumers are going to fatigue of faster and faster wireless once it becomes ubiquitous. Because all the carriers will have networks that meet or exceed their needs. Once networks are largely LTE deployed, they will stop caring about faster top end speed and start caring about density and coverage areas and expansion.

 

This is just completely my opinion. Verizon has been able to compete with EVDO 3G, even though their 3G is slower than Tmo and AT&T. Because that technology met their customers needs.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Robert, although I agree with you on some of these points, the central issue is not peak speed for an empty channel, it is the ability to sustain acceptable speeds for a number of users once the channels start getting crowded. That's where having a lot of spectrum will be advantageous. Again, the point of a Sprint buying metro would be to enhance Sprint's spectrum position but also to keep the spectrum out of T-Mobile's hands.

Maybe

I know some Florida folks who will be happy when MetroPCS CDMA is shut down. In the regular account PRL, MetroPCS is a higher priority than VZW, and Sprint users have huge issues with incoming calls/texts while roaming on MetroPCS there.

Maybe Sprint will fix their coverage problems in Florida. It's embarrassing to have to roam on Metro but they actually have a better network in some places.

The reason for Sprint to have acquired MetroPCS and or Cricket is not necessarily for their subscribers or their spectrum, it is to keep that spectrum from their competitors. If T-Mobile starts offering unlimited LTE on 20x20 allocations what is Sprint going to do to counter them? They will run out of spectrum really quick and be forced to rely on Clearwire, which is something they did not want to do. Sprint will be losing their unlimited data marketing edge. Hesse was right to push for absorbing Metro and Cricket.

T-Mobile played this masterfully. Give them credit where credit is due. This puts pressure on Sprint.

Let's face it. T-Mobile just became a much more formidable competitor at least from a spectrum point of view. If they execute properly they can inflict some damage to Sprint. Does Sprint need to respond by buying Leap and or USCC? No, not right away. I would definitely wait for the stock to rebound before doing any of that. But Sprint needs to execute on all aspects of NV and try and poach as many Metro and T-Mobile customers as they can. They need to start pressing the FCC to do something with PCS H and or partner with Dish. I know they want to keep Clearwire at arms length to cry spectrum poor at the FCC but if they do get get PCS H they need to eventually absorb it. I would like for them to explain their long term strategic vision other than execute on Network Vision.

Yeah Cricket not paying their bill almost does seem like a way of trying to force Sprint's hand, sorta like when Clearwire threatened to default on a payment and got Sprint to step. Not the exact same scenario, of course, but similar in a way.

 

I guess it likely depends on what the actual dollar amount of "acquired on the cheap" turns out to be.

It would be market cap + debt which in Leap's case is $4B.

So what company is going to take on the job of acquiring US Cellular? Verizon lines up the best spectrum wise, but would probably get rejected by the FCC. Also they were told to dump 700 a and b and this would have them acquiring more.

 

Sprint would have to sell off AWS and Cellular(850), and 700 just to get some PCS

AT&T makes sense, would the FCC allow it?

T-Mobile is not CDMA, but that doesn't seem to stop them. It would be their first cellular 850 spectrum to maintain, however, and 700 block spectrum. In a lot of ways it would make them a powerhouse, but only in certain geographic areas.

 

US Cellular might just be too hard to integrate and that's probably the reason they are still independent.

The best think for Sprint if they buy USCC is to assign Sprint's own 800MHz (SMR spectrum) and form a rural corporation. USCC caters to the rural customer and have made money doing it. They can be a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint. Meanwhile, their more urban customers can be absorbed into Sprint. Their 700MHz and AWS holdings can be sold off or traded. They do have 6M contract customers.

It could be that, by shuffling spectrum around, T-Mobile can isolate MetroPCS CDMA on 1900MHz, rather than just shutting it down ASAP. I think this might take away from T-Mo HSPA spectrum in Las Vegas, but otherwise it's doable within MetroPCS's own holdings (in Dallas they have a 5x5 LTE carrier, which means that all of their voice/non-LTE data is on PCS). And for AWS-only MetroPCS markets, T-Mobile could still just shut down CDMA entirely and push customers over to Sprint CDMA.

 

The result: T-Mobile gets between 5x5 and 10x10 of AWS spectrum to add to their network (10x10 in NYC, adjacent to their current holdings). The company will be able to deploy 20x20 LTE and 5x5 HSPA in a number of markets that they weren't able to before (NYC being a huge one), with the added bonus of more PCS to deploy H+ on.

 

Can't wait for AJ to get a spectrum chart up for AWS and PCS...because I'm too lazy to do it myself

Yeah, but I don't think Sprint will give them MVNO status. They are going to charge them roaming fees.

 

What's also interesting is the claim of 20x20 LTE in major markets at AWS freq (although not clear when this happens since they don't expect to shut down Metro's CDMA network until end of 2015), and the fact that they will overlay DT's own version of Network Vision over 37K cell sites (tower-top radios, better backhaul, etc). They are simply following Sprint but 2 years behind. They should be positioned for iPhone 5S (or 6) in late 2013 after the merger closes when DT will have refarmed 1900 for HSPA+ and deployed LTE on AWS (200 million pops).

 

According to Fiercewireless they will total an average of 76MHz in the top 25 markets. Clearly, Newco, if they go with unlimited data plans will present major problems for Sprint. Sprint will have to do something to respond.

What is really interesting to me is that of the 4 major companies, none is rushing to retire their legacy voice networks. Metro was the only one that wanted to go full blast at VOLTE. The rest are taking a very cautious approach to voice. Knowing what we know about LTE coverage vs 1x and EVDO, I don't blame them.

From what I can gather, the combined company would have about $20.5B worth of debt. DT must have used the combined proceeds of both the AT&T failed merger and the proceeds from the sale of towers to CrownCastle to write down T-Mobile USA's debt.

Yeah it sounds like a bit of a sweetheart deal for legacy metro, company stake considering. Id rather sprint give up 26% to a more secure entity.

I just can't comprehend paying for prepay customers. I imagine churn is quite high on Metro, I know it is on T-Mo. And given that churn is so high, Sprint can easily grow just by taking dissatisfied customers from this combined entity.

Yeah they can, but they have a small window to do it. By next September, I'm thinking that the combined entity will get the iPhone, thereby reducing the reasons for migrating off the combined carrier.

That would indeed be interesting. The important thing for Sprint to do is not panic and make a rash move in response.

Again, Sprint's stock is undervalued compared to sales. I'm thinking that Sprint can siphon quite a few of the Metro and T-Mobile customers. They just need to be smart about it.

MetroPCS does offer plans with nationwide extended coverage. So those phones have to roam on someone's network. Don't know if Metro roams with Sprint or Verizon.

So offer them plans with extended coverage. If they roam on Verizon or USCC offer them the exact same price or $5 better. Offer them the iPhone 5 or GS III for a discount to move to Sprint's prepaid brands.

Do Metro handsets have 850 CDMA? They'd need that for Sprint's roaming agreements with Verizon. I could see that as a hold up as a Metro handset couldn't use the full network available to a Sprint Handset

These are prepaid handsets. Virgin and Boost customers don't get Verizon/USCC roaming either.

Sprint already has nv to help those rural areas with lil coverage and has clearwire as a backup

 

Sent from my White Epic 4g Touch rockin Jellybean

They don't even have coverage in some of the areas that USCC and C-Spire cover. They will have to build new sites and I don't know if they can make any money doing that.

I have used it for over a week now. For a living, I drive a tow truck and a GPS/Navigation combo is my life saver. So far I have put Apple Maps to use for well over 1,500 miles and it has not led me wrong thus far. For a 1.0, this app rocks in my professional opinion.

I have also used it and if it does not steer me wrong, and it hasn't so far, it will replace my Navigon, which I really like.

If I was Sprint and this goes through, I would offer to let Metro customers bring over their Metro handsets for free and not require them to buy Sprint compatible handsets. Are there any Metro phones that don't roam on 1900PCS? The worst that can happen is to force T-Mobile to offer former MetroPCS customers free handsets, thereby making this merger even more expensive.

The impediment to Sprint buying/merging with anybody is that their stock is too low.

From what I gather, the talks are at an advanced stage, but not yet finalized. Part of the deal is that the resulting entity will be listed in the US stock market. So it looks that T-Mobile USA will be merged and spun off.

I would agree to a point. They would be purchasing infrastructure(ie towers ) and spectrum to go along with the subs. Infrastructure is a fixed price point. Spectrum would have to be priced using the companies internal processes(ie what they think the market will presently hold). They should avoid paying a premium for subs that are mostly pre-paid. They can only increase prices on the former Metro subs to equal the present sprint prices. Raising prices on current customers in order to make the "math work" could be disastrous.

From what I understand, Cricket is in a precarious financial condition and could be acquired for $.5B and assumption of debt. Even some of that debt could be restructured.

There are costs associated with integrating a network, namely leases that are no longer needed. I don't think that Cricket has many of their own towers. They just lease on already existing towers.

The best thing for Sprint to do is to buy the spectrum and have Cricket become an MVNO. No need to buy the company.

Sorry, dup

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Do not pay to acquire non contract subs. They are not worth any premium. And their cheap, non contract plans are an albatross around the neck of any major carrier that acquires them. If you keep the cheap, non contract plans, you piss off your core contract subs, who then want the same cheap rates. Or if you discontinue the cheap, non contract plans, you piss off the subs you just acquired. The FCC may not even allow that in any merger consent agreement; if it does, the cheap, non contract subs you just paid billions to acquire may then leave for MVNOs.

 

AJ

Well, yes, it depends on the premium they pay vs how much spectrum, how much spectrum is available in the market, PCS band H, Dish spectrum, etc.

If they acquire Metro and then increase prices to compensate for the price they paid to acquire them, then it could lead to people leaving for competitors. Or it lead to higher prices for all prepaid customers.

So Cricket it is.

I know that Sprint wanted to concetrate on Network Vision, but if this is true, then it is a major missed opportunity for Sprint. Not too much spectrum and customers in play out there.

Unfortunately, if past history with cdmaOne/CDMA2000 is any indication, Samsung is the least of the infrastructure vendors. Plus, Samsung is replacing Motorola legacy -- a double whammy -- in many markets.

 

AJ

I never understood why they even chose Samsung for the Network Vision project. I have friends in the industry and they do not think very highly of Samsung as an infrastructure vendor.