bigsnake49

Just now, RedSpark said:

True. I wonder how the 600 MHz deployment would affect this.

For exurban and rural sites, microwave and satellite backhaul are often used. 

3 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

This merger doesn’t need to happen. Sprint has finally turned the corner on its network build. We just got a bunch of new extended coverage as well as an announcement from Gilat on October 16, 2016 about Sprint expanding its Contract to a Three Year Managed Services Project:

https://www.gilat.com/pressreleases/sprint-expands-gilat-contract-to-a-three-year-multi-million-dollar-managed-service-project/

Original announcement by Gilat was made on October 26, 2016:

https://www.gilat.com/pressreleases/gilats-satellite-based-cellular-backhaul-solution-selected-by-sprint-to-extend-lte-services-to-metro-edge-and-rural-areas-in-the-us/

What would happen to that agreement in the case of a merger? Would Sprint senior management, who I assume are in a position to know about any pending merger announcements, really sign off on a Three Year Managed Service Project of this scope for Sprint less than 10 days before an Earnings Announcement?

Life goes on before and after the merger and I am sure that the agreement will be looked at after the merger.

4 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

they said the merger would be delayed a while longer....

You mean beyond the earnings report?

7 minutes ago, JThorson said:

 

I agree with you snake. There were reports of them wanting to wait until each company reported their fiscal quarter before a move happened (though we may still need to wait until T-Mobile gives theirs before we see any action)

T-Mobile just did:

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/tmobile-q3-earnings.htm

38 minutes ago, derrph said:

"Message from management" 

If history is anything to go by, when Sprint hypes things up and actually announces its not really what we think it is. 

If this is indeed the actual announcement of the merger, I could honestly see Son doing it. 

I just don't see why they cant do a full blown Project Fi type thing with both networks but remain separate.

A merger of this size is def going to take some time to review...if it gets that far...probably the reason why its a all stock trade as of now.

I have advocated a merged network while the parent companies remain separate for a little while now. But failing that, a traditional merger.

Just remember that it can only be rejected on anti-trust grounds. I don't think that anybody can find antitrust grounds for this merger. Reduced customer choice, yes but anti-trust, no!

18 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

And no call... Just a note from management. That is strange, especially at such a precarious time for Sprint.

Tells me that the announcement of the merger is close at hand.

1 hour ago, anthony.spina97 said:

I know that every iPhone since the iPhone 5s/5c that are installed with iOS 10 or higher support the band. My concern is that in order to gain access, they have to be able to download a carrier update via either WiFi or Cellular. Not sure how easy it will be for residents to do that.

 

-Anthony

It was a carrier update for the iPhone. I think they are using it as an auxiliary band running on Project Loon balloons. So yes you had to download it from somewhere. Maybe go to a AT&T store that has either other bands or WiFi or both.

Apple and AT&T in conjunction with Project Loon are using Band 8 in Puerto Rico. Band 8 is from 880-915 and 925-960. It is in effect in the rest of the world but not the US. It must be unencumbered in Puerto Rico. I guess anything to help restore service.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/loon-working-at-t-to-get-basic-services-to-puerto-rico

13 hours ago, Dkoellerwx said:

In addition to building towers, they will be buying sites from Sprint and it sounds like other companies as well. Acquisitions are the main push initially it sounds like, construction coming later. If Softbank remains connected with Sprint, this seems like a good thing to me.

OK they will be building towers for Sprint and other companies to share. They will buy sites and build sites for Sprint and then lease them back to sprint thereby contributing money to Sprint and freeing Capex. But then opex will increase.

33 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

better explained in the additional source I forgot to list: https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2017/10/softbank-joint-venture-acquire-8000-us-cell-towers

It starts with rooftop leases from Sprint.

That was speculation by an analyst and not part of the announcement. Unless he knows something nobody else knows...

14 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-19/sprint-t-mobile-deal-announcement-is-said-to-likely-be-delayed

 and in case you missed it:

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-parent-softbank-dives-into-u-s-tower-market-ahead-expected-t-mobile-tie-up

The second one is likely the most important as it would free up capital for Sprint which could be used even if there was not a merger imo. It certainly could make Sprint's balance sheet look better in a merger.

I don't understand your take on the second one. Softbank will invest in a tower company which does not have any towers right now which means that they have to construct them. So how does it freaup capital for Sprint? Maybe I am dense.

8 minutes ago, chamb said:

Yep, my thoughts too. No full merger.  Just figure out how to quit building duplicate cell sites. Share. Modern phones already have most of the bands. Customers of both companies use both networks. No roaming, just both networks are native.  If they do a full merger, chances are some spectrum will have to go.   If they can agree to be friends and help each other especially in the rural areas, they can retain all spectrum.  It no longer matters about GSM and CDMA, it will all be LTE soon. 

They can still have two brands. Have two networks that look like one network.  Maybe form a third company to manage the combined networks. The accounting  and management would be the issue.

It is not a technical issue.  The networks can be made to work together.  Stop building two cell sites in the same block.  Quit trying to both cover the very rural areas. Build one site and both companies have access.

The cleanest way to do that is to form a third not for profit company that leases the spectrum from the parent company and is solely responsible for network deployment and maintenance. The parent company will then pay the network company for service.

7 hours ago, RAvirani said:

It’s the same deal with Bell/TELUS. Same network different brands.

There are only two nationwide networks in Canada. ROGERS/Fido and Bell/TELUS. 

I am hoping that they merge their networks in some fashion whether with a full on merger or just merging the networks.

I admire what T-Mobile has done but I wonder where they would be without the break up fee from AT&T and the $5Bdebt forgiveness that they got from the mothership? 

3 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

That proofs nothing. That article is only 9-10 months old. Towers are a 2 year process.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

It proves that Sprint's promises are just that, promises. They should be taken with a giant block of salt. Himalayan salt at that :). The proof is in the pudding and so far all that Sprint has is the water, no eggs, no nothing.

15 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

What promise?

“When you look at our guidance for fiscal year ’16, we continue to say that we expect adjusted cash flow to be around breakeven, which reflects the fact that we are reducing our capex guidance from less than $3 billion to (a range of) $2 billion to $2.3 billion,” CFO Tarek Robbiati said during an earnings call this morning.

The move marks at least the third time Sprint has lowered its capex guidance for fiscal year 2016. In May it reduced the figure from $4.5 billion to $3 billion, then in October it lowered it from $3 billion to “less than $3 billion.”

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-lowers-capex-guidance-again-raising-concerns-over-network

3 minutes ago, S4GRU said:

Click on the hyperlink for this license. Look at the Map tab and see where they actually have licenses in that broad area. 

They have a 5Mhz license that covers 3/4 of the US but not the East coast and Northeast nor Florida. Their holdings are scattered. It would be beneficial if Sprint acquired them and horsetraded with carriers that already own AWS spectrum for some PCS spectrum. Adding yet another band to support is probably not worth it for Sprint and USCC has not deployed that spectrum either.

Just now, RedSpark said:

They don't have the Money?

Here's the presentation where Sprint announced CapEx of $3.5 Billion to $4 Billion for FY2017 during the Fiscal 1Q2017 earnings call.

Here's the Transcript from the Earnings Call where the CFO specifically commented on CapEx.

We have all heard those promises before, like in 2016.

4 minutes ago, Tengen31 said:

While I don't agree with you. Id also like to see Sprint partner with USCC. Uscc customers complain about Coverage. Uscc could ride on Sprint and Sprint could gain native coverage on USCC. Plus uscc owns Nationwide Spectrum. So for example on the Dakota's where coverage needs to be added they could do Band 25,26 which Sprint would do, then add uscc AWS which could be cheaper than B41.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Can you provide me with a reference to their nationwide spectrum?

9 hours ago, RedSpark said:

I don’t think it’s too late for Sprint.

Similar things were said about T-Mobile at one point...

Apple too for that matter.

It is too late. They don't have the money to improve their network so they have to compete on price. When they compete on price they don't have the money to improve their network. It's a vicious cycle. It does not help that T-Mobile has realized most of their gains in customers at the expense of Sprint. If T-mobile actually makes good on their promise of deploying 600Mhz spectrum on an accelerated spectrum, you can kiss Sprint's behind goodbye. I am sure they can then make an alliance with Dish to get access to Dish's spectrum. T-Mobile can make it alone. Sprint cannot. Not as a truly nationwide provider.

4 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

If you leave the Wi-Fi turned on your phone should automatically connect to a Xfinity hotspot. I just shut my Wi-Fi off when I leave and when I come back home i turn it back on And it automatically connects to an Xfinity hotspot. The phones should automatically do it. And data speeds are very respectable too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would think that it should automatically go on WiFi.

3 minutes ago, danlodish345 said:

They use Verizon wireless as the cell phone provider for the network side and they use their own hotspot on their cable modems for access when you’re stationary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about outside? Comcast has a pretty extensive outdoor WiFi network. When you go inside does it automatically switch the data connection to your cable/WiFi modem?

I wonder if Comcast is going to offload data onto its WiFi network and then stand and pole mounted small cells to where they only use Verizon for roaming outside their own network. Charter will definitely follow that model.

A very decent article summarizing the pros of the merger:

http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/lowenstein-s-view-it-s-time-for-t-mobile-and-sprint

3 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Well, I would have expected AT&T to have raised prices after both Verizon and T-Mobile did, yet they did not. A combined T-Mobile/sprint would have the spectrum resources to offer unlimited data for a long time to come as well as being a home ISP. Price is going to depend of where profit maximizations occurs. Upward pressure in this formula would come from less competition but downward pressure is going to come from scale, synergies and spectrum resources being more highly concentrated.

 

 

Home ISP? Maybe in rural areas.

39 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

Did you also just find out that the Tooth Fairy is not real and the Moon is not made of green cheese?

AJ

Wait a minute, I thought the moon was made of Swiss cheese ;).