bigsnake49

I love how wild speculators and Sprint haters point to Sprint's market cap of $13.5 billion. "If I just had $14 billion, then I could easily buy Sprint."

 

Back to reality. Does anyone here really think that Sprint could be acquired for less than $25 billion? Heck, AT&T was going to pay a ridiculous $39 billion for T-Mobile, and Sprint is more valuable than is T-Mobile.

 

AJ

Sprint's net debt is about $15B, so a suitor has to come up with $14B of equity and $15B of debt, so at least $29B. I assume at least 30% premium on top of current price so 1.3*$14B+$15B=$33.2B. Of course they should probably count on another $5B to finish Network Vision.

Metal buildings are de facto Faraday cages. The frequency hardly matters -- the metal will absorb or reflect the signal.

 

AJ

I live in a high rise condo building (7 floors). It's cement block outside with metal framing inside. Verizon has the best signal even though it's on 1900MHz and AT&T is on 850 and they're on the same tower. Sprint is great by the front door but starts fading quickly once you get inside. T-Mobile although on the same tower as Verizon and AT&T is weaker than any of them and Sprint.

I Have two sinology NAS, one the primary and one secondary that backups the first one (actually synchronizes to the primary). The primary is also backed up to Amazon's AWS. I can't say enough good words about them. They have been solid.

I'm impressed that they still had positive cash flow and still have a substantial amount of cash at hand.

Buy out their public shares and turn around and offer private placement? Sounds inadvisable.

 

From JBtoro on Forum Runner

No, private placement allows them to buy back their public shares. All shareholders then agree to take it private.

Consider this a substantive, data focused counterpoint to the WSJ article and Sanford Bernstein claims of insufficient spectrum.

 

I laid out some spreadsheets and ran some numbers today. I focused, admittedly, on only one market, Los Angeles. But it is a PCS A-F block 30 MHz market, and it is a big one. So, what Sprint can pull off in LA, Sprint should be able to pull off in many smaller markets.

 

In the LA Metro market (i.e. Los Angeles County), Sprint holds the PCS A block 30 MHz license and has just under 1000 sites. Of those sites, average CDMA1X/EV-DO spectrum deployment is only 11.65 MHz per site. In other words, Sprint has an average of 18.35 MHz unused and available PCS spectrum per site, and that is comfortably greater than the minimum 10 MHz of spare spectrum that Sprint needs to slide in a second 5 MHz x 5 MHz LTE 1900 carrier.

 

Now, averages can be misleading, so I counted up the outliers. Of all the Sprint sites in the market, only five sites out of nearly 1000 have deployed greater than 20 MHz of spectrum. Those five (i.e. ~0.5 percent) are the only sites in the market that could not presently accommodate a second LTE 1900 carrier. But, as data traffic shifts from EV-DO to LTE, not to mention voice traffic declines, Sprint could relatively easily refarm CDMA1X/EV-DO spectrum in order to deploy a second LTE 1900 carrier on those five sites, too.

 

In conclusion, the naysayers may know how to crunch the financial numbers, but they do not seem to know how to crunch the spectrum numbers. In actuality, Sprint already has ample spare PCS spectrum for LTE in Los Angeles plus a great many other major markets. And S4GRU has been saying this from a position of knowledge for months now.

 

http://s4gru.com/ind...l-lte-carriers/

 

AJ

AJ, just to supplement what you said. 1X Advanced can be used to further reduce the amount of spectrum devoted to voice.

Then where are they going to get money to roll out LTE? They don't have close to enough cash to buy out their shareholders.

 

From JBtoro on Forum Runner

Maybe private placement?

Add VoIP, and DirecTV has triple play to compete with cable. Add a Sprint partnership (Sprint doesn't do fixed broadband anymore, nor does it do linear video delivery) and you have a quadruple play that both Sprint and DirecTV can cross-sell.

 

The big problem I can see with this is and always has been the fact that in apartments/condos etc. you can't use dish. And that is where the densest group of customers are located.

Some apartment complexes allow it. The other thing that dish can do is to have one antenna for the whole complex. Highgain, high bandwidth antenna.

I'm hedging my bets and saying that at least one of the two DBS companies will strike some sort of agreement with Sprint (or maybe Clearwire) in the near-ish future.

 

Sprint no longer has ties to wireline phone companies (potential competitors...CenturyLink, which bought Embarq awhile back, is doing "Prism" IPTV service in some markets) or cable companies (they're all in bed with Verizon now). That's a plus for cooperation with D*...and Sprint actually has a rural footprint that they're planning on upgrading to LTE (T-Mobile still hasn't figured out how to do this). And...wait for it...rural folks are a pretty big source of subscribers and revenue for DBS.

 

Without repeating too much of the comment I posted here:

 

http://www.lightread...3&site=lr_cable

 

My bet is that D* would swoop in to get either a majority or significant-minority stake in CLWR, with Sprint expanding their stake to include most of the rest of the company, since cablecos dumping shares would drop the price of the company through the floor. Sprint would use their increased position to ensure that Clewarwire TD-LTE wasn't being billed to them per-gigabyte so NV can optimize spectrum use the right way (2500->1900->800). D* would use CLWR TD-LTE for fixed broadband, installed by satellite installation contractors, potentially with decent caps and definitely with high speeds (my bet is 20+ Mbps down and a few Mbps up over a single TD-LTE 20MHz channel, with channel-bonded TD-LTE coming later with higher speeds). Add VoIP, and DirecTV has triple play to compete with cable. Add a Sprint partnership (Sprint doesn't do fixed broadband anymore, nor does it do linear video delivery) and you have a quadruple play that both Sprint and DirecTV can cross-sell.

 

Sounds like a win-win to me, though this would mean Clearwire would have to deploy some coverage-optimized TD-LTE sites (to serve more D* fixed customers...though these sites could have PCS or even CLR style spacing due to higher gain on fixed antennas), but that's not actually a bad thing.

You and I are thinking along the same lines. I think the value of the spectrum that Clearwire has is in fixed broadband applications particularly as a delivery vehicle for video, but not necessarily for broadcast video, but video on demand. I would expect that Dish's spectrum would also be targeted for that. I think that Sprint's spectrum position is sufficient for mobile applications, but not for video delivery.

DirecTV Group Inc. (NYSE: DTV) wants Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK), Time Warner Cable Inc. (NYSE: TWC) and Bright House Networks to shed their investments in Clearwire LLC(Nasdaq: CLWR) as a condition of their proposed sale of Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) spectrum to Verizon Wireless .

DirecTV's proposal, described in this Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filing, comes into play as the Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice review the proposed sales, which are valued at about $4 billion and also include Cox Communications Inc. 's AWS spectrum. T-Mobile USA is in line to gain some of that spectrum, but only if Verizon Wireless can get those deals done. (See VZ Wireless/T-Mobile Spectrum Deal Has a Catch.)

"Allowing these MSOs to continue to hold minority ownership and management interests in Clearwire despite their new arrangement with Verizon Wireless would enable them to hamper further development of Clearwire's competing network and services, both by impeding new initiatives and by refusing to make additional investments," DirecTV argued in the filing.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=223133&site=lr_cable&

This is getting curiouser and curiouser. A grand DirectTV/Clearwire/Sprint tie-up?

Well heres my 2 cents about this

I os osx- linux based

Android- linux based

Linux- open source

 

Apple is just trying to prolong the inevitable fall of the apple empire because they know android is better

 

 

 

sent from a nuclear explosion

Just a small correction: OS X and IOS are not linux based. They used the Mach microkernel, that was worked on at Carnegie Mellon by Avie Tevanian, one of the founders of NEXT, which apple acquired. The used land is a mashup of FreeBSD and NetBSD with some OpenBSD for good measure. Their kernel is called XNU.

Whether or not Apple will fail, we will see. They have been written off many times since the 80's.

This is interesting. I wonder why Sprint is giving up on the wifi offload strategy so soon? I think its still a great strategy to have wifi offloading with the sprint optimizer too. I get that Sprint wants to offload excess capacity to Clearwire but I'll be honest with you...with only 5000 sites initially upgraded to TD-LTE by June 2013 and possibly up to 8000 sites upgraded shortly afterwards, I don't think Clearwire has enough of a TD-LTE footprint nationwide to supply Sprint with enough capacity offloading capability that Sprint desires. Even if they filled up all of Clearwire's 16000 Wimax sites with a TD-LTE overlay it would NOT be enough since it still doesn't cover a lot of the major markets.

 

IMO, Clearwire at some point will need to go out and create more small patches in the downtown areas of these bigger markets they missed in the Wimax rollout like San Diego, Phoenix, Detroit, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, etc to provide capacity relief and would bring in a lot of money to Clearwire. Maybe this won't happen until Sprint buyouts Clearwire but it does need to happen.

They don't need to have coverage nationwide, just in places that Sprint needs it. Between their "G" block, other possible 1900PCS blocks and 800MHz they will not need additional capacity for a little while.

Its too bad LTE Band 25 didn't include H Block. It would require yet another LTE Band to cover all of PCS.

 

On another note, I'm not a big believer in 10MHz LTE carriers. One 10MHz carrier has roughly the same capacity as two 5MHz carriers. The only advantage is speed and bragging rights.

 

5MHz carriers offer more than sufficient speed for 99% of mobile broadband uses. Especially when the wireless carrier has more opportunities to deploy additional carriers as needed. If Sprint sticks with 5MHz channels, it becomes much easier to dig up more PCS spectrum for another carrier. If you are always looking for a 10MHz swath, your options for additional capacity are much fewer.

 

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

Wider channels have the advantage of not needing guard bands except at the endpoints.

Its too bad LTE Band 25 didn't include H Block. It would require yet another LTE Band to cover all of PCS.

 

On another note, I'm not a big believer in 10MHz LTE carriers. One 10MHz carrier has roughly the same capacity as two 5MHz carriers. The only advantage is speed and bragging rights.

 

5MHz carriers offer more than sufficient speed for 99% of mobile broadband uses. Especially when the wireless carrier has more opportunities to deploy additional carriers as needed. If Sprint sticks with 5MHz channels, it becomes much easier to dig up more PCS spectrum for another carrier. If you are always looking for a 10MHz swath, your options for additional capacity are much fewer.

 

Since Sprint will have the densest LTE network of all, the capacity from a single 5MHz carrier is pretty good. And since they will have lots more flexibility for additional 5MHz carriers, it gives them more capacity expansion options.

 

I think consumers are looking for an inexpensive, consistently performing LTE network without data limits. I think that consumers will not want speeds greater than 10 - 15 Mbps, especially if they have to pay for it.

 

Also, if H Block has stringent build out requirements, expect Sprint not to go after nationwide licensing. They are not going to deploy in places like Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas so soon. They may allow someone else to pick up those License areas.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

I don't think they will go for a nationwide license. They seem to have an aversion to Wyoming and Montana...

I like for Sprint to get a substantial chunk of the PCS H block for another reason. If they do, then Dish spectrum is very close (only 5MHz separation between Dish's spectrum and PCS H block) so it stands to reason that at some point or another if Dish and Sprint cooperate that 5MHz sliver might just get thrown in for chits and giggles. Now that would be some impressive block of spectrum!

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017094139

It seems they really want the FCC to hurry up and auction this band. The only problem I see is if the FCC allowed the big two to bid. They would probably try to jack up the price for Sprint out of spite. The only way to prevent that is to put strict buildout requirements, let's say two years or less on deployment.

AJ could they just devote, let's say a 20MHz band for sprint and then use a different different 20MHz band for everybody else? It might be a pretty expensive way of doing it. The other way is for Clearwire to contract with Sprint to be the uplink provider for all of Clearwire's wholesale customers.

I think the best solution for Clearwire/Sprint is to use the 2600Mhz spectrum strictly as downlink and pump up the power somewhat. Using it strictly as downlink also takes care of the loss of coverage you get with going TDD vs FDD (interference).

I read this article. I'm not sure I get what he is proposing.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

He's proposing using WiMax for backhaul for WiFi hotspots. The cable cos are deploying strand mounted WiFi, so that business model is not going to fly in the US. However, they can use it for backhaul to small cells.

This is true. But to be valuable to Sprint, it doesn't have to cover the entirety of the suburbs to be useful as additional capacity in the suburbs.

 

For instance, lets take the suburb of Richardson, Texas outside of Dallas. A LTE cell there starts to go over capacity and all PCS and SMR spectrum that can be used for an additional LTE carrier is used up. They will still deploy TD-LTE on that site for additional capacity, even though it is suburban.

 

Additional carrier capacity with TD-LTE does not need to be contiguous with other TD-LTE sites. It can be a complete island, just within the Sprint Macro FD-LTE network. And it doesn't have to cover the whole cell that is identified as approaching capacity. Because even if it covers only half the customers in that cell with a meaningful LTE signal, every one of those customers now covered can be shunted to TD-LTE, if needed.

 

Then all the customers who are remaining in the cell outside of the TD-LTE coverage can now have the 1900 LTE and 800 LTE carriers to themselves. They were near capacity before adding the TD-LTE carrier, and now with approximately half removed, lots of capacity is back available.

 

And in some instances, if there is a high demand zone right outside the edge of coverage of the TD-LTE signal island, an assisting TD-LTE picocell can be added. Sprint is in the process of finalizing a plan for urban picocells that attach to street lights, stoplights, etc.

 

Clearwire's TD-LTE is going to be a wonderful thing for Sprint and eventually us customers.

 

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

I don't know if you have been to Richardson, because I used to live there, but that would probably not be the best example in that it would require a hell of a lot of 2600MHz sites to cover all the housing developments. Now if you're trying to say that they might try to cover the malls and office buildings with 2600MHz sites, I agree with you, but it just ain't going to help you in the huge housing developments. Not unless they do some intelligent network planning and assign video to 2600MHz, turn up the power and use it strictly for downlink.

Not exactly. Before AT&T partitioned and disaggregated selected pieces to T-Mobile, AT&T held the AWS D block 10 MHz license for the Central REA and the AWS E block 10 MHz license for the West REA. VZW holds the AWS F block 20 MHz license for the Northeast, Southeast, Great Lakes, and Mississippi Valley REAs.

 

So, yes, the licensed areas are perfect complements. But the licenses themselves are not.

 

AJ

Which makes my point above even more strongly. I don't think that the FCC will allow them to have 40MHz in the areas you listed. Maybe 30?

Forcing Verizon to sell its own AWS holdings, at least in areas where they don't overlap with SPectrumCo, seems like a stupid idea. What Verizon is trying to do is get as close to nationwide on their AWS license (at 20MHz or so) as possible so they have economies of scale when building out their network. They can't be faulted for this...Sprint's got it with the G Block and ESMR, and Verizon's doing quite well with upper C block.

 

They will have 20MHz (10+10) of near nationwide AWS if they're allowed to purchase cablecos spectrum. They will not have nationwide 20+20 AWS even if they're allowed to keep their own. They have nothing on the Western US. Actually, pre failed merger attempt, AT&T's AWS holdings were a perfect compliment to Verizon's.

Thank you, ian for doing all the legwork on the WCS for PCS spectrum swaps. I think it is in the best interest of both carriers to do the swap. I think the FCC will impose other conditions other than the sale of the 700Mhz A&B blocks. I think that they will also force them to sell their own AWS spectrum holdings concentrated in the eastern half of the country, at least in the large metro areas and Florida. Now Sprint also wants them to impose nondiscriminatory WiFi roaming on the cable cos rapidly expanding WiFi networks as well as backhaul:

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=222163&site=lr_cable&

Do you really care about our points or did you just want to post your story about knowing a guy that works for Network Vision? You posted the story twice and the second time addressed none of our arguments. Also as Robert pointed out, this issue is discussed constantly on this site.

He's not trying to argue with anybody. He just reiterated what his friend told him. No more, no less.

Thanks bq. If you see him again, tell him to come to the Melboune, FL area. So far we have been bypassed by the Big 2. It would be very funny if Sprint deployed LTE in our area before they did.