Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 188

Thread: New York Attorney General and nine other states file lawsuit to block Merger

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,096
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphling27 View Post
    Also, isn't the 2.5/2.6 GHz leased by the education sector? So, even if no bank/debtor wanted or did take it, it wouldn't go back to the FCC to auction it.
    Sprint owns 85% of that spectrum. That would go back. There's been talk about the FCC taking back much of the 15% Sprint doesn't own because most of it is unused. but that's a different topic

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    18,112
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    While I agree there shouldn't be any personal attacks, I have gone back and read the posts between veriztd's last post and this one and I do not see anyone personally attacking anyone here. Nor do I see anyone complaining about being personally attacked. So you're seeing something is not there, but ok we'll continue to not personally attack each other like we have been doing this whole time.
    Please remember that as a forum moderator it is our responsibility to enforce the rules when it appears that personal attacks or insults are being exchanged. It is a judgement call.

    Thank you for your feedback. Yes, the majority of the posts in this thread are on subject and are not in question.
    Don't make me turn this car around.....

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    283
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    No Verizon will not miss the date. People holding on to their CDMA only phones will learn the hard way in 200 days
    There's WAY too many prepaid and other devices out there still on CDMA. Considering that they have already committed to 2021 for IoT, my guess is that consumer phones will go until at least 2020 on a significantly compromised and cut down CDMA/1x network with no EVDO. If they run it on the remnants of B5 with 10x10 of LTE deployed, then there's not much incentive to shut it down until 2021 when they can actually remove the equipment.

    And they had an opportunity to bid in that auction. An auction in which they and t-mobile begged the FCC for favorable rules for them which the FCC granted and then they didn't participate. which is especially egregious since Verizon sat it out too. they also didn't participate in the AWS-3 auction. Which just proves they do not care all that much about investing in their network. Softbank has the cash to properly fund a proper network buildout and doesn't give Sprint the funds.
    I would agree that Sprint and Verizon both screwed up on not bidding for spectrum, for basically the opposite reasons. Sprint needs just a bit more low-band, and Verizon needs a lot more mid-band, but is fine with their existing low-band resources. I'm surprised Verizon didn't bid for FirstNET, as they were the natural choice for that, but AT&T is going to benefit instead.

    That being said, DISH just sitting on the spectrum and not doing much of anything with it is ridiculous, and that needs to be taken and resold to the other carriers so that they can be more competitive.



    That's less than 50% and far less than 50% of the land mass. So I would call that regional. A carrier could only cover the top 10 metro areas and be covering 25% of the US population. Is that national carrier?[/QUOTE]

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,230
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Limeybastard View Post
    What makes you think that Sprint won't survive if the merger fails?

    I actually believe the opposite to be true. Sprint will invest, compete and survive.
    My clue is that Sprint has only had one profitable year since 2006* That year was 2017. Their profit from operations was ~$300 million. That is not enough to build out their network to be competitive. By comparison, AT&T and Verizon have been spending ~$10 billion a year each for a decade to get where they are.

    They had a total 2017 profit of $7 billion. All but the $300 million was from a tax windfall from the tax law change. That was not repeated in 2018. They lost ~$2 billion for 2018.

    Sprint is not making money to invest, compete and survive, and they can't borrow it either.

    *It may have been since 2008 - doesn't make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,420
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Morphling27 View Post
    Also, isn't the 2.5/2.6 GHz leased by the education sector? So, even if no bank/debtor wanted or did take it, it wouldn't go back to the FCC to auction it.
    Some of the most important BRS licenses were issued to educational organizations, who then leased the licenses to Clearwire, with certain conditions. Clearwire was bought by Sprint.

    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    Sprint's spectrum if they default on their $40 Billion bank loans will go to the banks where the Banks and Investment Groups loaned Sprint the money and used Sprint's spectrum as Collateral on the loan. The banks would then sell that spectrum to get some of their loan money back. .....
    FCC licenses are not pork bellies to be bought and sold in a Chicago trading pit. Any time licenses get transferred from one party to another the FCC has to make a determination that the transfer is "in the public interest". The banks would have to satisfy the FCC that whoever they sold the spectrum to would use it in the public interest.
    Donald Newcomb

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    540
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    yes I believe they will.
    As you know, my answer would be a solid No. They will pump in the funds and carry on competing.
    On a side note, have you researched worldwide mergers similar to this? Here's a clue of a recent one, same sort of arguments where thrown around. Orange and T Mobile UK merger.
    Guess who lost? The consumers.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    283
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    FCC licenses are not pork bellies to be bought and sold in a Chicago trading pit. Any time licenses get transferred from one party to another the FCC has to make a determination that the transfer is "in the public interest". The banks would have to satisfy the FCC that whoever they sold the spectrum to would use it in the public interest.
    So what happens then? I think the more likely scenario is that Sprint goes through a debt restructuring, and either merges or is bought by another company. There are a number of possibilities:

    1. Altice
    2. JV between Comcast and Charter
    3. Some combination of 1. and 2.
    4. Amazon
    5. DISH
    6. Google
    7. Apple
    8. Union Pacific

    Altice is one potential buyer because they are going hard on strand-mount small cells for Sprint, and using Sprint for their MVNO, and Sprint has a strong network on Long Island, where Altice's largest concentration of customers is. Altice also has backhaul through their MSO territory, which is admittedly small. Charter and Comcast might want to get more serious in the wireless business. Any combination of Altice, Comcast, and Charter could do a partnership with the other MSOs, and in any case, get access to more fiber more cheaply, as well as strand mounts. In fact, much of the network could become strand mounts that work well with 2500mhz in a cable takeover scenario.

    Amazon is my favorite. Amazon could use the Sprint stores to market Prime Wireless, as well as other Amazon ecosystem devices. It would give them more of a way into low income areas, which is currently their weakest market. They could offer free wireless service to Prime members (with a few hundred MB of data included, and per GB after that, with a UDP option like xFinity Mobile and Spectrum Mobile). They could also use Sprint's network for their vans and future autonomous vehicles.

    DISH would have to be a merger, and their combined spectrum assets would be amazing. They could even sell off a chunk and still have a ton, offering mobile and fixed wireless bundled with satellite TV. Another company could also come in and buy DISH and Sprint together and realize the same synergies in spectrum and network.

    Google is a little more complicated, since they sell phones to other wireless providers. This is why I think Apple is less interested in Sprint, even though they have considered their own wireless network before. Of course Google would have an interest in wireless for both mobile and home internet in order to get more people doing more online.

    Union Pacific is a whacky long-shot. I don't know how much of Sprint's fiber still runs on Southern Pacific routes from their days as the Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications days, but if there is a significant amount, maybe there's some synergy to be leveraged there? Or between long-distance fiber that runs on railroad routes? UP could build towers on their own property, creating giant fiber backbones to feed other towers off of microwave, but none of this is a very good fit for Sprint, which is primarily an urban carrier at this point. There are useful railroad uses for a wireless network, like IoT tracking of railcars, but it's also really bad timing given that they've just finished the build-out to PTC, so to rebuild Sprint towers with PTC towers and share infrastructure would be a huge effort now.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    283
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    By comparison, AT&T and Verizon have been spending ~$10 billion a year each for a decade to get where they are.
    T and Vz have also been stealing from their wireline sides for years, probably decades. I wonder how they would be doing financially if they had been forced to pay market rate for their backhaul. This may be changing on the T side though, since they are now inventorying their fiber under one system for home, wireless, and business use, with bundles that have GPON and Metro-E on different strands, and Vz will eventually do the same with NG-PON2 as a truly converged network. The result now is that the wireless side is actually providing fiber that the wireline side can deploy, re-investing in wireline.

    Also, it looks like DISH is worried about the value of their spectrum in a 3-carrier world:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dish-...170517414.html

    They're right that we need 4 carriers, they just seem to be more motivated by self-interest here.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,420
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    So what happens then?....
    Good question. The point is that the FCC does have a say in who can use spectrum. The transfer of a license must be "In the public interest" regardless of who "owns" that license. It's not a fee-simple title. What this means is that, assuming the scenario of the merger failing, it may be less likely that Sprint's spectrum would all be hoarded by AT&T or Verizon. This would just be the same but worse. They might have to find a 4th party to buy the spectrum.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,096
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    There's WAY too many prepaid and other devices out there still on CDMA.
    You know this how? Prepaid is such a small portion of Verizon's business and it gets smaller each month. And most prepaid people use smartphones

    Considering that they have already committed to 2021 for IoT, my guess is that consumer phones will go until at least 2020 on a significantly compromised and cut down CDMA/1x network with no EVDO. If they run it on the remnants of B5 with 10x10 of LTE deployed, then there's not much incentive to shut it down until 2021 when they can actually remove the equipment.
    Apples and oranges. Verizon has sliver's of 1x that are 1.5 MHz that they are using for IoT and have no other use anyway. Those segments would be used for LTE regardless. Not for phones.


    I would agree that Sprint and Verizon both screwed up on not bidding for spectrum, for basically the opposite reasons. Sprint needs just a bit more low-band, and Verizon needs a lot more mid-band, but is fine with their existing low-band resources. I'm surprised Verizon didn't bid for FirstNET, as they were the natural choice for that, but AT&T is going to benefit instead.
    600 MHz is not mid band so how Verizon not bidding on it screwed up their midband spectrum by not bidding is confusing. FirstNet which is also not mid-band as it's 700 MHz. So which midband spectrum did Verizon not bid on?

    That being said, DISH just sitting on the spectrum and not doing much of anything with it is ridiculous, and that needs to be taken and resold to the other carriers so that they can be more competitive.
    Until the buildout deadlines pass nothing will happen.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,096
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Limeybastard View Post
    As you know, my answer would be a solid No. They will pump in the funds and carry on competing.
    I'm curious as to how far does Sprint have to sink before you stop believing that? I'm legitimately curious to know.

    On a side note, have you researched worldwide mergers similar to this? Here's a clue of a recent one, same sort of arguments where thrown around. Orange and T Mobile UK merger.
    Guess who lost? The consumers.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
    Apples and oranges. You're comparing the European market to the us.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    540
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    I'm curious as to how far does Sprint have to sink before you stop believing that? I'm legitimately curious to know.



    Apples and oranges. You're comparing the European market to the us.
    I sure am comparing the two, as you should to.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    151
    Device(s)
    Looking for new one
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Limeybastard View Post
    As you know, my answer would be a solid No. They will pump in the funds and carry on competing.
    On a side note, have you researched worldwide mergers similar to this? Here's a clue of a recent one, same sort of arguments where thrown around. Orange and T Mobile UK merger.
    Guess who lost? The consumers.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
    Orange and T Mobile UK share the network like Telus and Bell. Two separate companies but “one network”. That is why you see similar pricing and not competition.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    540
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by n33d0n3 View Post
    Orange and T Mobile UK share the network like Telus and Bell. Two separate companies but “one network”. That is why you see similar pricing and not competition.
    Beat around the bush as you want. You either haven't get your facts right or putting a spin on the word "share the networks". A typical non consumer corporate doctrine.

    My point was made. Consumer choices and prices went down a few notches after their merger.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    283
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    Good question. The point is that the FCC does have a say in who can use spectrum. The transfer of a license must be "In the public interest" regardless of who "owns" that license. It's not a fee-simple title. What this means is that, assuming the scenario of the merger failing, it may be less likely that Sprint's spectrum would all be hoarded by AT&T or Verizon. This would just be the same but worse. They might have to find a 4th party to buy the spectrum.
    Yeah, that's where it gets really murky. Or maybe it gets peacemealed out to some upstart urban mobile carrier in the cities and to various WiSPs, co-ops (telco or electric), municipalities, or other entities in rural areas to do fixed wireless. Or the FCC could somehow force it to be unlicensed? That would be bizarre.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    You know this how? Prepaid is such a small portion of Verizon's business and it gets smaller each month. And most prepaid people use smartphones
    Go read the Verizon forum.

    Apples and oranges. Verizon has sliver's of 1x that are 1.5 MHz that they are using for IoT and have no other use anyway. Those segments would be used for LTE regardless. Not for phones.
    They could run phones on that. Sprint's CDMA1x800 is running on something crazy like 1.25x1.25 and it works fine.

    600 MHz is not mid band so how Verizon not bidding on it screwed up their midband spectrum by not bidding is confusing. FirstNet which is also not mid-band as it's 700 MHz. So which midband spectrum did Verizon not bid on?
    600mhz is low-band. No **** sherlock. For one, Verizon missed several opportunities over the years to beef up their mid-band holdings with more B66 and B70, but they also could have gone for FirstNET with B14 or for more B71. Low-band can replace mid-band, but mid-band can't replace low-band outside of major metros. Low-band is a more expensive way to beef up capacity in urban areas, but the benefit is that it also helps to beef up coverage sites in rural areas more than mid-band.

    Another 10x10 or even 20x20 of low-band would have done a LOT for Verizon's network. They also could have acquired some combination of the two. 20/20 hindsight, but selling the B12 was sort of dumb too, even though it was great for T-Mobile and the industry as a whole, but back then it looked like you couldn't make a phone do B12 and B13, which seems quaint in retrospect.

    My point is, out of what DISH has, the mid-band would be great for Verizon. There's the B70 and the as-yet-undefined superset of B25. Either would be great for Verizon, although the B70 is really juicy, as it's a 20x20 versus the little 5x5 in the PCS band. Verizon may yet have some B71 to deploy in a few markets if they get to deploy Comcast's B71, which would be good since tons of phones already support it.

    Until the buildout deadlines pass nothing will happen.
    DISH's B71 would be most valuable to Sprint, which has by far the least low-band holdings now that T-Mobile has some B71. DISH is clearly spectrum squatting, as they bought the most B71 over NYC, NJ, and CT, which is a market that they barely operate in for satellite TV, as they don't have any of the sports channels for those markets, and thus have a tiny marketshare. It's also a market where that spectrum is very valuable, and fixed wireless internet has a limited market, since almost all of it has cable internet.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2013, 06:55 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-07-2006, 07:12 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-05-2004, 01:10 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-06-2004, 11:35 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks