bigsnake49

I think the key to having a successful merger is to immediately open up T-Mobile's PCS and AWS-1 data networks to Sprint customers. I think pretty much every LTE capable Sprint phone has band 2 (25) and 4 on it. Up to 20M might have band 12 on it. Newer phones might have band 66 on them. The moment that the merger is approved, have phones ready that can use both networks. Get Sprint to densify their network enough to duplicate 1x voice coverage and implement VOLTE even before the merger. Refarm all possible EVDO spectrum to LTE before the merger. Maybe use band 12 and 26 mainly for VOLTE after the merger. 

For me that likes to stream music but very little video this will be a good service.

7 hours ago, Paynefanbro said:

At $40/month, it seems like a steal to use on VZW's network. The 5 Mbps cap is good for pretty much anything I ever do on my phone. The only thing it lacks is any type of options for folks that travel internationally.

Or any kind of discounts for family plans.

18 minutes ago, red_dog007 said:

Funded by Verizon and you also only get 480p video.  They also need some design help on that website! 

For somebody like me that likes to stream music, it can be great. Bu then I cache up to 12 hours using WiFi so the desire to stream is quenched by caching.

Called Visible. $40/month for unlimited but limited to 5Mbps.

8 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/fcc-tees-up-2-5-ghz-ebs-spectrum-reforms-for-5g there you go something I found

If they want to do fixed wireless in rural areas they better get some of that rural 2.5GHz spectrum. Sprint has great 2.5GHz spectrum but it is concentrated in urban areas,

Yeah, this business about beating China on 5G is to tug at the patriotic strings of this administration. But not having to play a lot of money for 5G spectrum would allow New T-Mobile to concentrate on integrating the two networks and deploying 5G.

1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

I am pretty sure that as far as #2 is concerned, they will have to go further into debt in order to sustain that pace of investment in their network. T-Mobile would have been in the same boat if they had not had the break up fee from AT&T and a $5B debt forgiven by the parent company. But T-Mobile has been stellar in their marketing and in their execution.

As far as #3, I am very happy that they're finally executing. It just might be too late. They should have done whatever they're doing now in 2013. Softbank wanted to merge them with T-Mobile even back then.

The fact that Softbank let Sprint go for a dime will tell you that they were desperate.

14 hours ago, Dkoellerwx said:

I take issues with point 2 and 3. Clearly Sprint has turned things around. We've seen plenty of evidence this year of accelerated deployments, innovation in antenna/tower technology to speed things along, and new partnerships to get proper backhaul to more sites and small cells. Money and management have been issues in the past yes, and there may still be some kinks to iron out yet, but things are *much* better than they used to be. They fact that the committed 6 billion (or more) to capex for the next several years pre-merger should tell you that things are much better than they were.

Edited to add: You are not currently a sponsor, but if you were, you would be able to see the hundreds/thousands of site upgrades, and dozens (or more) sites *adds* that have been happening this year.

I am pretty sure that as far as #2 is concerned, they will have to go further into debt in order to sustain that pace of investment in their network. T-Mobile would have been in the same boat if they had not had the break up fee from AT&T and a $5B debt forgiven by the parent company. But T-Mobile has been stellar in their marketing and in their execution.

As far as #3, I am very happy that they're finally executing. It just might be too late. They should have done whatever they're doing now in 2013. Softbank wanted to merge them with T-Mobile even back then.

I have been pro merger for a while now for the following reasons:

1. Softbank did not invest in Sprint beyond the original buyout 

2. Sprint could not afford the LTE deployment on its own, much less 5G

3. Sprint could not project manage its way out of a plastic bag

DT has shown a willingness to invest in T-Mobile's network, the two networks will be become one so the 5G deployment costs will be shared and T-Mobile has shown that they are mean and lean and can get things done.

6 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

I think maybe as far back as 2015 or 2016 they are supporting bands 2 and 4

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

So I see the combined company new phones have to support Band 71, 12, 26, 25, 66, 41. Most new phones on Sprint support those bands except 71. I think only S9 supports 71on Sprint. I could be wrong thou.

The complicating factor would be all the different CA schemes. Yikes!!!

1 minute ago, danlodish345 said:

That's exactly my question who would buy the Spectrum.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

Dish might be interested in it but I doubt they can afford it. Between MFBI and new T-Mobile phones that support Band 25 it ceases to become a problem. New T-Mobile phones will be required to support the Sprint bands.

It's the same problem with Sprint phones and Band 66 and 71. New phones are required to support those bands. I think most phones on Sprint support Bands 2 and 4.

1 minute ago, danlodish345 said:

That would just create a lot of complexity issues so I don't see why it ain't that should be divested

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

Who will buy it?

23 minutes ago, Rawvega said:

I have no idea, however I don't see why New T-Mobile phones wouldn't support both band 2 (for roaming) & band 25 (native) assuming that they aren't forced to divest the G block. On the network side, since band 25 is a superset including band 2 it seems like it would make the most sense for New TMobile phones to make use of it while also broadcasting band 2 (presumably via MFBI) for legacy T-Mobile devices and incoming roaming revenue.

I'm thinking that both will be required for a smooth transition. I don't see why G Block should be divested. I can see a lot of horse trading possible to get contiguous spectrum on PCS and possibly trading Band 66 for spectrum for Band 4 or PCS

Does anybody know how the New T-Mobile will handle Band 25/Band 2 after the merger? All new T-Mobile phones with band 25? MFBI? both?

What conditions would you like the FCC/FTC to impose on this merger? I would like for them to promise to natively cover rural America to match or exceed AT&T's coverage within 2 years from the close of the merger and match or exceed Verizon's coverage within 4 years.

4 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

You're probably getting Band 66 instead of Band 2 but see Band 3 instead.

Very possibly! My phone supports Band 66.

On 4/11/2018 at 8:22 PM, mikejeep said:

I have received a lot of messages over the past 3 weeks regarding improper LTE band identification for T-Mobile users. There is an Android bug that causes EARFCNs assigned to newer LTE bands (>46) to be reported incorrectly, such as Band 66 and Band 71. SignalCheck is showing Band 2/3/5/6/7/etc. because that is what the OS is reporting.

For more details, please see this bug report; I encourage everyone to 'star' it and/or adding your own report to try getting it more attention: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/37136986

I am trying to implement a workaround that will at least help T-Mobile users until Android fixes the issue.

-Mike

 

Yeah mine is reporting B3 for T-mobile. I am definitely in the US and it should be reporting B2.

On 4/30/2018 at 7:12 PM, Dkoellerwx said:

That's already happening. Sprint is in the process of getting 800 equipment deployed in the southern IBEZ, and the spectrum should be clear by the end of the year, with various launch times along the border. I don't think even T-Mobile could have sped up the process with Mexico and public safety entities to get the spectrum properly reorganized. 

I was involved early in the process of the 800Mhz rebanding. If Sprint had some money left over from the merger which they didn't, the process would have gone a lot faster. Just sayin...

2 hours ago, S4GRU said:

To be honest, so did I.  It's easy to lose some critical perspective over time as our priority of the incremental pieces change.  We tend to see things in aggregate over a long period, instead of in the individual timelines/milestones they were in, linked with everyone else's differing stages.  I was also much better at that in my 20's. 

Yeah, I remember talking about the 1x800 and the legacy equipment in 2012-2013. Yeah, age is my excuse too ?!

7 hours ago, S4GRU said:

Yeah I forgot about the 800 1x or the legacy  CDMA equipment.

2 minutes ago, Dkoellerwx said:

Hard to have that without the NV equipment in place on the ground. Thus... rip and replace. 

T-Mobile did it. Verizon did it. No rip and replace.

2 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

iirc RRHs add about 20% to the performance of a site, which was a primary reason for Network Vision.  Don't forget the 3G reaches further than LTE.  I often see sites in rural areas from other carriers that have no RRHs in the countryside.  Sprint would have needed more sites in many places without Network Vision due to the limits of Ground Mounted Radio LTE.

I am not advocating LTE deployment without RRHs. 

36 minutes ago, Dkoellerwx said:

It may have cost more than just slapping LTE on the tower, but the infrastructure is better going forward. It is easy to plug other LTE bands into the base infrastructure without have to add additional cabinets or other items, as would have been required if they just slapped Bnad 25 over top the old 3G network. Adding Band 26 or Band 41 (or now T-Mobile bands) would have required even more equipment, and they would have had to eventually rip everything out anyway.

They might have had to eventually but they could have done it over 4-5 years without any disruption to the network, unlike Network Vision.  They could have added the LTE cabinets/antennas/RRHs without disturbing the CDMA cabinets/antennas.

15 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

Softbank is a conglomerate.  Sprint is not their most important investment overall.  They can still complete their strategy by owning a smaller slice of a bigger wireless company, especially one that generates its own cash flow.  The money Softbank initially planned on putting into Sprint was consumed by a bidding war with Dish over Clearwire.  It is hard to raise dedicated money post buyout.  Sprint going alone has a lot higher risks than a merger (both are significant risks), especially when increasing cost of capital in markets is likely.  Besides the technical aspects, Sprint needs far better marketing and T-Mobile can likely deliver in that area.

As a customer, everything will depend whether I get quality service where I need it post merger + a year or two. Otherwise I will go with the carrier that serves me best.   Eliminate my favorite towers or redirect them would accelerate this.  If they get updated to Next-Gen before the merger, the odds will increase that I will stay and buy new phones.

As a customer of Sprint with a compatible phone you will be much better off in the year it would take to close the merger. Meanwhile if the two companies are to be believed, they will expend a substantial amount of Capex to further improve their networks. Even in a year's time as a Sprint customer you will be better than if Sprint was going it alone.