bigsnake49

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)

4 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

Well looks like dish has money somewhere after all

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-sprint-t-mobile-merger-talks-power-shifts-to-a-familiar-agitator-11560544163?redirect=amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

3 hours ago, dkyeager said:

Quick and legal proceedings generally don't go together.

They do if the states don't have legal standing to sue in federal court which in this case they don't.

2 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

I don't why Dish is a bad thing if merger doesn't happen?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

They don't have any money. They spent it all on spectrum.

30 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

Dish trying to pull strings to influence at FCC and DOJ meeting during past week.      (Yahoo News/Reuters)

So Charley is crying and kicking to FCC and "Certain members of the DOJ" cause now he says Dish can't build out their spectrum because of the Sprint and T Mobile merger.   WTF?    Charley says there needs to be 4 players in the cellular market.   

Why?  Is Sprint and T mobile strong arming him?   This is new levels of preposterous!  Why don't they throw this clown out on his ears! 

Again, from Market Watch:

 Dish Network discusses opposition to Sprint-T-Mobile U.S. merger, according to FCC file

Where's that damn bucket of popcorn!!??    

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.

13 hours ago, RedSpark said:

U.S. judge sets pre-trial hearing next week for Sprint/T-Mobile deal

Happening on June 21st....

 

Good, get it over with quickly.

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.

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

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.

11 minutes ago, tyroned3222 said:

Not yet, but the hill is also reporting similar .. the states are very confident they can this approved ASAP.
“Legal experts who spoke to The Hill said the states have a strong antitrust case, predicting the ensuing legal battle could drag on for months, if not years.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. 

1 hour ago, tyroned3222 said:

Ready for more popcorn !!! Lol looks like states got a TRO approved and the merger will be at minimum delayed another 6 months.. sounds like it will be treated as a high profile case.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/t-mobile-sprint-merger-appears-to-be-in-major-trouble/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

2 hours ago, red_dog007 said:

You don't want to force TMobile/Sprint to spin off assets to create a new company but you want to force Dish or Comcast/Charter to enter the markets as a 4th player (their own network) as part of the merger?  Right.

Boost, PCS and a network.  As you read in my post ( I hope ), that any would be decommissioned site goes to Boost ownership.  As we know, there is plans to decommission tens of thousands of cell sites and rack spaces.  These leases and equipment ownerships would be transferred to Boost. 

So now you are basically forcing Boost to fail. It takes a lot of money to run a network. If you are going to spin off Boost then you also have to assign it part of the debt for buying all those network elements minus depreciation. 

Dish needs to shyte or get off the pot. It is nearing the deadline where it loses its AWS-4 spectrum and its 700Mhz spectrum. Cable cos are going to be deploying CBRS with or without government intervention. I just want the government to speed up the NPRN process. None of this goes over and beyond regular government oversight.

I am against any concessions by T-Mobile/Sprint. The new company will have to make major investments to integrate the two networks and deploy 5G. The last thing it needs is to have the government weaken it so they can declare a victory. All the while the Big 2 have garnered 75% of the wireless revenue and EBITDA.

As I said before, I am for the merging companies to promise that:

1. They will match Verizon's coverage after 3-5 years

2. Any existing MVNO agreements will be honored with no change in wholesale prices for 3 years

3. The company promises to be friendly to new MVNOs

4. Existing customers plans should be honored for 3 years

5. Any existing roaming agreements ala Shentel and CSpire should be honored for the next 3-5 years

6. Any Rural Wireless Alliance agreements should be honored for the next 3-5 years

7. The new company should offer to host third party spectrum on favorable commercial terms (I am looking at you Dish and Comcast). They can immediately host Dish and  Comcast's 600Mhz and Dish's AWS-3 spectrum.

4 minutes ago, Trip said:

The cheap walkie-talkies are usually unregistered and would cause interference when used.  While you may not care, I find that wireless carriers do tend to care when there is interference in their spectrum.

I don't disagree with you on public safety, though the question is "who pays for more density?"  Adding sites adds cost, and I'm not clear who would pay for this massive overhaul of public safety, both moving from 450-512 and within 700/800.

You didn't address the non-public safety entities in the band.  There are quite a few of them.

And neither of us touched the issue of the antennas not fitting in a typical cell phone.  Further, I'm not sure who would buy this spectrum even if it were to be made available.

- Trip

Well it is always about the money, isn't it? If you don't want overcrowded channels, reuse them. There is a small town next to mine that has twice as many policemen and firemen as my own. Same crime rates and populations and all. Hell both towns could probably be served much better by the sheriffs office but no they need their own police departments and fire depts and of course their own radio networks. 

I went to college in the 70s and I took an antenna course. The stuff that they use for antennas nowadays totally amaze me. This isn't the dipole, full length antennas of the 70s. Yes you may not be able to do a M-MIMO antenna of a small size in the 450 band but I was surprised that you can to a 4x4 in the 700 and 600Mhz bands.

As far as the TV channels are concerned let the feds buy them out of their slots and recover the funds from the auction or repack them where you have space.

32 minutes ago, Trip said:

What a nightmare that would be.  In multiple ways.  Tons of non-public safety operations are in 450-470.   Every one of those cheapo walkie-talkies that you see at Wal-Mart is in 450-470, so the spectrum would be swimming in interference from them for years.  On top of that, only certain channels from 470-512 aren't used by TV stations in fewer than a dozen markets.  And on top of that, in the most congested markets, 700 and 800 are full, if you believe the public safety folks.

- Trip

Like I would care about the cheap walkie talkies. The 700Mhz public safety band is quite empty. The problem with public safety networks is that they are build with very few towers at high power which limits channel reuse. If they actually turned down the power a bit and used more towers they will have a lot more capacity. Plus PS people just like to complain. I know, I worked with them.

7 minutes ago, DurhamHusker said:

This is the way I see it. Granted, I'm no expert.

1) Democrats at the federal and state levels are worried about low income customers getting priced out of the market. Maybe a guarantee of low priced plans with minimal data allotments would help.

2) Democrats and Republicans alike at the federal and state levels along with members of the DOJ are likely getting heavily lobbied by Verizon and AT&T. Frankly, I'd be scared shitless if I were them.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

I totally agree but you can achieve #1 by agreeing not to raise prices on existing plans for 3 years.

Yes, they are heavily lobbied by AT&T and Verizon and that's why I don't want them to spinoff Boost or divest spectrum. We need a strong merged company to compete with AT&T and Verizon.

10 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

This is well outside the scope of the merger though.  Because Sprint/TMobile want to merge, you can't force Dish or the cable companies to become part of the deal or force some action as a result of the merger.  

It is if you want to create a 4th player. The two merging companies should not be forced to create one for you. If you give Boost 10x10 slice how the hell are they going to deploy it? They will have to pay a competitor to deploy it for them. So what do you have? An MVNO that has a high overhead that will not be able to compete. You will have the illusion of a 4th player. You can declare victory and go home but it will be a hollow victory. What you will also have is massive government interference in how companies do business. There are absolutely no antitrust concerns in this merger. If I am Sprint/T-mobile I would welcome my day in court. I would tell the DOJ to get the attys general in line or they can forget about spinning off Boost or any other concessions. 

35 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

How would any anti-trust case be successful?  Going from 4 to 3 is still no monopoly. It is still far away from being one.  And the chances of any of the 3 carriers merging is nill.  Is there a point in anti-trust lawsuits that says you can only have no less than 4 direct competitors?  I don't think the grounds of a monopoly would be very sound when each carrier will essentially have 33% of all subscrubers. 

In light of competition, there isn't any really even now.  I don't call the carriers being the same price to $20 difference depending on your plan (non-promo) competition.  The only way I'd see competition increasing is if the merger happens, New-TMobile gets to a 1:1 parity in coverage, has way more 5G coverage and speeds 2x or 3x faster than VZW/ATT.  Then on top of this, they seriously drop prices.  This is the only way that TMobile will be able to hugely and negatively impact VZW/ATT subscription levels. No one cares to switch if they are only going to save 20 bucks. 

 

Is the big and serious concern really on the MVNO front?  Wont the combined company have like >80% of all MVNO subscribers? This is why there are talks to spin off Boost? Instead of just spinning off Boost, that should be an independent subsidiary (where they own at least a majority) that gets all would be decommissioned sites.  Boost gets say at least 10x10 of PCS, maybe some SMR and BRS/EBS.  Once New-TMobile is done integrating the two networks they sell it. If no one buys it, they spin off Boost debt free with $5billion in cash.  Whether it is sold or just spunoff they have a 7yr dirt cheap roaming agreement. 

Loads of different ways to handle concessions.  If it happens, it'll be very interesting to read the bullet points of all the concessions. 

No spectrum divestments. Force Dish to create a network. Speed up CBRS NPRM. The cable cos would love to get their hands on CBRS and deploy CBRS based networks while roaming on let's say Verizon for coverage outside their service area.

They should also take away 450-470 and combine it with the 470-512 spectrum. Public safety LMR spectrum allocations are available in the 700 and 800MHz bands. Plus the LTE band at 700Mhz.

If you for a moment think that the attys general are suing because they have our interests at heart you have not been paying attention. I bet you there has been intense lobbying by the big 2 to extract concessions that would weaken the merged company.

I have no problem such as we will match Verizon's coverage within 3 years or roaming agreements will stay in effect for the next 3 years or other such concessions but I have a major problem with spectrum concessions.

At this point, I think merging the networks but not the marketing organizations makes more sense.

I think that spinning off Boost is a positive step and so is confirming that Altice's MVNO arrangement with Sprint and maybe expanding it. I think  offering to host Dish's 600Mhz and AWS-3 spectrum right away and then band 70 later on advantageous commercial terms will go a long way towards merger approval. Now if the feds or T-Mobile can convince Dish to buy Boost from them so they can start with some customers then everybody comes out a winner. The Feds have their 4th network, Dish does not have to forfeit their spectrum and does not have to build a network from scratch and Sprint and T-Mobile get their merger approved and possibly get some mid spectrum capacity to use. Win-win-win. Now if they can convince Comcast to let T-Mobile to host their spectrum and become an MVNO then it can be win-win-win and win.

Sprint & T-Mobile will not be divesting any spectrum, not when Dish has plenty of spectrum. As I explained before Dish can be an MVNO of Sprint/T-Mobile and Sprint-Tmobile can host Dish's 600Mhz and AWS-3 holding right away. While they're at it they can also host Comcast's 600Mhz.

15 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

 

The 4G network must be really congested or bad backhaul.

6 minutes ago, dro1984 said:

Comcast Could Be 4th US Wireless Carrier, Thanks To T-Mobile, Sprint Spectrum Sale

T Mob and Sprint might sell spectrum to Charter or Comcast to form 4th player.

Crap gets thrown against the wall and seeing if it sticks.

16 minutes ago, Paynefanbro said:

ENDC only allows for seamless handoffs between the 5G and LTE network right now so I'm confused by your comment. Sprint would still need to move half of their spectrum over to 5G from LTE. 

Yeah the spectrum will have to be split manually between 5G and 4G in the beginning until DSS is fully implemented and the two technologies would have to share the Massive MIMO antennas.