bigsnake49

38 minutes ago, lilotimz said:

Major cable operators like Comcast and Time Warner / Spectrum are the primary threats to Verizon and ATT imo.

 

They have the scale and preexisting extremely lucrative user base they can leverage to just funnel money to their wireless adventures. They've already got the infrastructure to support wireless users via their MVNO deal with Verizon and thus experience in supporting wireless subscribers. It likely won't be hard for them to just swap over their users to whoever network they take over and rebrand quickly.

 

The greatest impediment to them fully entering the industry is cost in actually building out a nationwide cell network. Taking over a national cell network and using it as a base to launch their competitive wireless platform is much cheaper.

 

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

It will be great and all but they have not shown much interest because they know they need to invest in Sprint's network and they know that if they acquire Sprint they need to compete against the other 3 carriers 2 of which are very well funded and the 3rd is a master at marketing.

From a technical point of view it will be great for Sprint to get in bed with the cable cos because their backhaul problems will be solved and their strand mount and pole mount small cell problems will be solved. Cable cos have been losing customers to cord cutting and they could recover some of those customers. 

But the cable cos are notoriously conservative so I don't expect them to do anything anytime soon. If Sprint can convince them to network share ala Altice, that will be wonderful. 

Or they can merge the two networks and spectrum, form a network operating company and Sprint and T-Mobile becoming marketing companies. I think that will fly a lot easier than a full merger/acquisition.

29 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

Thats right doesn't sound like Sprints fault there tho

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

They did not have to turn 900Mhz to the feds. They had 2.5Mhz of spectrum there. But the FCC froze the spectrum allocations so they could not buy any more of it. 

23 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Fiscal 4Q18 Earnings are out: https://investors.sprint.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2019/Sprint-Reports-Fiscal-Year-2018-Fourth-Quarter-And-Full-Year-Results/default.aspx

https://investors.sprint.com/financials/default.aspx

I wonder what the $2B non-cash charge is?

4 hours ago, bigsnake49 said:

I understand all of that. You brought up the $7.2B net. It is not a cash flow thing it is a non-cash item they had to recognize in their accounting. Since Sprint has not really made a profit in a little while, the tax credit will not result in any additional cash in Sprint's pockets until they do so. The number I look at is adjusted free cash flow which was -$908M, which is to be expected since they were spending money on the network. I expect a similar cashflow this quarter.

(Millions, except per share data)	Fiscal 3Q18	Fiscal 3Q17	Change
Net (loss) income	($141)	$7,162	($7,303)
Basic (loss) income per share	($0.03)	$1.79	($1.82)
Operating income	$479	$727	($248)
Adjusted EBITDA*	$3,101	$2,719	$382
Net cash provided by operating activities	$2,225	$2,683	($458)
Adjusted free cash flow*	($908)	$397	($1,305)

And just on que, another lost of $539M in free adjusted cash flow.

39 minutes ago, newyork4me said:

I don't have the time, energy, or desire to try to explain accounting, but net loss/income means literally nothing.  It's effectively made-up paper numbers, as it includes significantly large amounts of non-cash items.  They are recognizing substantial depreciation charges, which is a non-cash "expense" item that signifies absolutely no money leaving Sprint's control.  It's reflective of spending on capital assets they did a while ago.

Stating a net loss precludes them from having money to invest in CapEx is a bit like saying eating an apple in the morning means you can't send a text message that day.  They really aren't related.

I understand all of that. You brought up the $7.2B net. It is not a cash flow thing it is a non-cash item they had to recognize in their accounting. Since Sprint has not really made a profit in a little while, the tax credit will not result in any additional cash in Sprint's pockets until they do so. The number I look at is adjusted free cash flow which was -$908M, which is to be expected since they were spending money on the network. I expect a similar cashflow this quarter.

14 hours ago, newyork4me said:

No they don't.  Sprint generated $7.582 billion NET cash flow from operating activities in 3Q18 YTD.  That gives them substantial room for investing activities (CapEx).

That's Sprint's problem.  They should have a $40/mo unlimited basic single line plan and a $50/mo unlimited plan with HD video.  No activation fee.  They'll pull Metro subscribers over...and, remember, it doesn't take much CapEx to focus most heavily on metro city centers.

The $15/mo unlimited BYOD is still making them money though, as long as you don't call into care a lot.  Their marginal cost is about $0 for providing that line...it's permanently de-prioritized, so it is just offering excess network capacity that they are monetizing. 

From the 3rd Quarter 2018 report:

3 hours ago, newyork4me said:

Yes, the other way to look at it is that for the first time in over a decade, Sprint actually has what is required to become a strong, viable competitor in all the large metro areas.  Removing that as a competitor will ultimately result in higher prices.

Think about it this way:  Sprint is about to turn on 5G NR 64MIMO in spectrum sharing B41 in over 1,000 sq miles.  That's huge for delivering an amazing network experience.  Consider that MetroPCS was able to build to 1.6 million subscribers in Los Angeles and a million subscribers in New York City and Miami, etc.  They had a tiny, terrible, and slow network in those areas but competed on price.

There are A LOT of customers that don't travel much from home.  Sprint can cover them VERY well and is becoming the gold standard for network in those areas.  They still have a mediocre network elsewhere on top of that...it's a super compelling value proposition.  They should be able to eat a lot of other carriers for lunch in those metro areas--especially T-Mobile/Metro.  That keeps price pressure on T-Mobile and the other providers.

Great but they will lack the Capex to innovate. Metro was able to do it because they targeted a lower income demographic and covered those cities using DAS. Sprint can't. Can they survive? Yes. Thrive no. How much money is Sprint making on my $15/month unlimited BYOD plan? How much out of that can they devote to Capex? 

23 hours ago, lilotimz said:

Likely as Sprint (or their successor) would be selling it and they're keeping at least 1x800 up til 2021.

CDMA 1x1900 would probably be the first to go as Volte takes up more of the voice load and 1x800 covers the decreasing share of devices not volte capable. Evdo 1.9 would remain at least for edge of cell areas where LTE data just don't make it yet.

Likely to see a 3 MHz B25 carrier at least in some areas when this happens.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 

No new devices with CDMA, they will not activate them and no PRL updates will be available.

1 hour ago, Tengen31 said:

If they are so concerned about spectrum then why let it fail where 2.5 will just sit on the side lines for the next 5 years where the merger it would not

 

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

They're actually not concerned about spectrum. Or anti-trust. They are mostly concerned about political considerations as in loss of jobs. Either way they are doing CYA no matter what the decision. They are looking for plausible reason no matter what the decision. 

I still don't understand all this delay. There are very defined roles for government agencies to approve or reject the deal. The DOJ with the anti-trust angle and the FCC with the concentration of spectrum. All the consumer angles as in possibility of higher prices or the potential loss of jobs are not part of the consideration process. Now there are potential DOJ angles as far as previous roaming contracts that need to be enforced, assignments of Sprint spectrum to roaming partners in exchange for free or low cost roaming etc, etc. The FTC might take into consideration the issue that the the deal might "substantially lessen competition".

12 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

If the merger does fail, a name change and rebranding might be a good idea since the name Sprint makes people's head shake. My vote is on dish if it fails. Robert is right tho even John Ledger said it's not about wipeing out Sprint cause Sprint is part of New TMobile. The two become one but Sprint is still their with the name TMobile.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

Dish does not have any money.They spent it all on spectrum.

27 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

Dish, CWA and 22 other entities make case against T-Mobile/Sprint merger

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/dish-cwa-and-22-other-entities-make-case-against-t-mobile-sprint-merger

First DOJ can only reject it based on ant-trust grounds or national security. The effect on prices or jobs is not under the purview of the DOJ. FCC can extract concessions as far as too much spectrum but when you take into account all the spectrum holdings of the other 2 the merger passes the spectrum screen. There will be some concessions as far as roaming deals are concerned that Sprint signed. Also the deals that Sprint signed with rural providers to lease spectrum to them in return for cheap roaming would have to be honored.

If the merger is not approved it will be for political reasons and then then Sprint/T-Mobile will sue. DOJ is still licking their wounds from the AT&T court battles so I am not sure they would be eager to take on another one. I think all of this noise is posturing to gain concessions not to reject it outright.

Also discount Dish. They're butt hurt because T-Mobile no longer needs their spectrum. A weakened Sprint would be much more amenable to help Dish deploy their spectrum than a strong combined company.

I am willing to bet that Sprint will declare chapter 11 soon after the merger fails.

I wonder what grounds the DOJ has for rejecting the merger. It cannot be on anti-trust grounds. I also wonder if Sprint and T-Mobile will take the DOJ to court if it is rejected. Last time the DOJ went to court on a merger they lost (AT&T, DirectTV)

12 hours ago, RedSpark said:

So they bet the fate of the company on a non-traditional monopole strategy which failed, and now they’re stuck with doing a traditional build but lacking the actual spectrum to do that traditional build in an economical way. It’s like they didn’t anticipate a downside... or perhaps it was “we’ll merge our way out of trouble.”

No wonder there was such confidence that 600 MHz was “Spectrum of the past”. The room was probably full of people who were afraid to say no or bad idea to Masa’s network plan... and then it came crashing down to earth. This is up there with the Nextel acquisition in terms of strategic blunders, I’m sorry.

I am a victim of that strategy. Sprint elected to ditch their traditional macro near my condo and instead moved their voice to a monopoly and moved LTE band 41 to couple of mini macros. LTE coverage suffered. They did send me a Magic Box but that is probably not cheap.

Sprint cannot stand on its own anymore. They need a partner that will infuse some cash into the operation. Maybe a three way partnership between the cable cos, Dish and Sprint. 

When is Sprint's quarterly earnings presentation?

16 hours ago, Tengen31 said:

TMobile cant raise prices cause they have a brand, a brand that will go down hill if they did. They cater to millennials that will leave if prices go up. Prices are more likely to go up if it fails. Sprint can't keep doing free service or 25 dollars for unlimited everything like I have.

 

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Or $15mo like I have

Just now, though said:

Don't think that is new...

Beginning/middle of March 2019. After that, my results have really been pretty nice.

3 hours ago, shaferz said:

After months and months of our MB only outputting d/l speeds under 30mbps... we are now back up to what it was before.  This is the first time with the MB Gold that we have achieved these speeds:

 

DL Mbps/UL Mbps

73.3 / 7.39

68.0 / 8.08

78.5 / 9.46

 

 

 

Yeah mine is also doing pretty well also:

59.8/7.25

44.5/6.60

64.7/.26

If you're using mmwave as anything other than in a hotspot manner as in stadiums, malls, etc. You will need millions of small cells. That's why all the players in the US want to secure sub 6GHz spectrum. 

3 hours ago, derrph said:

 

 

I don’t see nor understand as to why the US needs to bet China is 5G. This wasn’t a issue when LTE launched. Verizon nor ATT are screaming this. Sounds like to me it’s more “we won’t be able to compete properly with Verizon or ATT alone in 5G.

Sprint between the two could actually do it (given a steady stream of capex). T-Mobile I think will be at a disadvantage. I know they have their 600 but realistically, will it really make an impact in 5G (speed etc) besides distance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

They can always employ it in CBRS which has both a shared and an exclusive mode. Also LAA and soon C-Band. Also don't forget that Dish is always lurking.

22 hours ago, Terrell352 said:

I still believe that dish and Sprint together makes sense. Not to mention more lowband for Sprint that they could use for 5G

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Dish is too cheap to actually contribute money to the merger. Now, Sprint Dish and the cable companies might make some sense. Comcast has some 600Mhz spectrum which combined with Dish's 600Mhz will enhance Sprint's low band holdings. Deploying Dish's + Comcast's spectrum will take some money which Sprint does not have. But Dish does have some useful spectrum for sure.

1 hour ago, dro1984 said:

That's a great thought, but where is Sprint going to get the capex for that?   Softbank won't give any funding.   Sprint has financed itself to the brink and has to refinance it's existing loans.   T-Mobile won't hand over a fist of money.     IDK.... great idea, but I don't see it happening.   And no offense... but if you give Sprint the money, and leave it up to their own management... will it get done and 100%??   Ummm... not too... sure... about.. that...  ...  it's a catch 22.    It's why I want them sold and run by someone else.   

No, I want the network run by an independent company in which both T-mobile and Sprint have shares. The members of that company should come mostly from T-Mobile.

If the merger does not go through, I hope they revisit the idea of combining network assets and spectrum and have have a separate company run it which then sells capacity to both T-Mobile and Sprint. T-Mobile then become just marketing companies (MVNOs).

I do think that they will fight this in court. AT&T fought it and won.