Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 188

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,107
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Limeybastard View Post
    I sure am comparing the two, as you should to.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
    Different markets, different rules etc etc

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    DISH also owns some B4 and B66 in addition to that juicy B70, the PCS H block and a bunch of B71. Logically, Sprint needs the B71, Verizon needs the B70, and some of the B4 and B66. The remainder of the B4 and B66 would complement T-Mobile's holdings nicely. The PCS H block is probably worth the least since it doesn't even have a defined LTE band yet, but that would probably make sense for Sprint to beef up their mid-band since they already have the weird B25, so another superset band wouldn't kill them and would help their mid-band, which is also pretty lean. In major metros, they're pretty much a B41 carrier, but in smaller cities and suburban areas where towers are spaced farther apart, some more mid-band would be helpful.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    If you look at the depth of DISH's 600mhz, it's literally perfect for Sprint. It's a nationwide 5x5, which would effectively double their low-band in most markets, with 10x10 in a bunch of markets, and 15x15 or 20x20 in a couple of major metros where Sprint can be very competitive. It's like DISH bought it either in anticipation of selling it to Sprint, or buying/merging with Sprint and using Sprint's network to deploy, and then selling off the AWS to other carriers.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,107
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    If you look at the depth of DISH's 600mhz, it's literally perfect for Sprint. It's a nationwide 5x5, which would effectively double their low-band in most markets, with 10x10 in a bunch of markets, and 15x15 or 20x20 in a couple of major metros where Sprint can be very competitive. It's like DISH bought it either in anticipation of selling it to Sprint, or buying/merging with Sprint and using Sprint's network to deploy, and then selling off the AWS to other carriers.
    5X5 isn't anything. You know how fast that will get congested and it's slow to begin with. T-Mobile would benefit because it right next to the band 71 they already own. In my area that would give t-mobile 20X20 instead of 15X15. Which they need if they want to deploy both 4G and 5G on that band

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,536
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Your objections to the merger are all based upon speculation:

    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    It's inevitable. Even if Sprint customers just get absorbed into T-Mobile's price structure, that's a huge price increase right there.
    There's been no statement that they are migrating Sprint customers to T-mobile plans. You're speculating that T-Mobile wouldn't grandfather in the Sprint plans. T-Mobile has plenty of grandfathered plans already. It's far more likely they would keep Sprint customers on their current plans to avoid customer losses.


    If Sprint and T-Mobile merge, their choice to spend less for service that's not quite as fast or reliable, but is cheap and has a ton of hotspot data that many people are probably using instead of home internet, will be gone, and they will have no choice but to pay MORE for one of the three remaining carriers.
    More speculation that prices will increase. No facts. Furthermore, you and the attorney generals are also speculating that if Sprint remains as a fourth carrier it will keep pricing as it is. It could start raising prices once the merger is axed. It may feel that's the only way it could get the revenue to service its debt. There's no guarantee the prices will remain the same.

    Of course they will charge more if there is less competition.
    More speculation.

    And yet, their net postpaid adds have been way ahead of Vz and T for a number of years. T-Mobile is growing, and others aren't growing anywhere close to as fast. TMUS is a threat to Vz and T, even if TMUS has half the number of customers of either of them.
    But you're speculating that such growth will continue. There's no evidence that it will. Their growth could plateau soon as they've gotten those customers to switch that they could. TMUS still can't touch the corporate customers, government customers and those high revenue customers who demand more coverage. If their growth plateaus, they're really no threat at all.

    So while you're dealing in massive speculation, I'm dealing in facts:

    If the merger doesn't go through, T-Mobile and Sprint won't have the same economy of scale that AT&T and Verizon has. That means they can't spend on their network at the same level, nor can they deploy 5G technologies at the same speed and efficiency like AT&T and Verizon will be able to do.

    Sprint has all of this B41 band sitting there most of which is unused. They'll have no means by which to ever get most of that in use as it requires heavy site deployment. They won't really have the resources to deploy much of a 5G network. So their service offerings will just get more and more obsolete. They already have the slowest data in the business. That issue will keep getting worse.

    Furthermore if the merger doesn't go through, wireless home internet won't be deployed on that spectrum. If the merger happens, T-Mobile plans to be the third largest ISP by 2024.

    "New T-Mobile expects to add 9.5 million customers to its home broadband service by 2024. It will also offer services to over half of US households by 2024. "

    https://www.businessinsider.com/new-...-market-2019-3

    So it's a fact that disallowing the merger won't allow that to happen. If you were truly for greater competition you'd want to see them bring a competitor to that market.

    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
    You can throw out names all you want. That doesn't make Sprint a more viable entity. Return on investment governs investment. The reason Sprint hasn't found a buyer before now is because it's a bad investment. T-mobile is the only company making an offer because they've found how to actually monetize the Sprint assets in a profitable way. They have the infrastructure to use Sprint's resources to the fullest and so they can make it work.

    You and the government regulators just want to impede this progress. You throw out these fantasy notions that Apple will buy Sprint and all will be well if you block the merger. It's just nonsense. Apple isn't buying Sprint.

    And if Sprint goes through a debt restructuring as you mention above, what do you think that's going to do to network upgrades? You think the bankruptcy court is going to be making sure that Sprint is spending on CAPEX? Of course not.

    Sprint's assets only get utilized to fullest if you give them to Legere and let him get to work making the new T-Mobile into a carrier that will strike fear into the hearts of AT&T and Verizon.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    37
    Device(s)
    LG G8, Samsung Galaxy Note 3, iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Honestly, I used to work for Boost Mobile. Sprint has a ton of towers that are totally useless. If T-Mobile can get these up and going, they could eat Verizon and AT&T for breakfast.

    I can see the concern as pricing could lose its competitiveness. We could also see a regression to data limits though that would be very idiotic as people would go effing bananas.

    As someone who keeps T-Mobile (For JUMP 1.0) but has almost no service in my place, I really think a few proper tower refarming procedures would make a world of difference.

    Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk Pro.
    ƸӜƷ•°*””*°•.I'm lost. If you find me, Please return me to myself.•°*””*°•.ƸӜƷ

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,129
    Device(s)
    iPhone X, iPhone 7+
    Carrier(s)
    ATT Prepaid, RP
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    That's basically the opposite of a regional carrier, but OK. There are 149M POPs in the top 30 markets out of 327M total POPs, and Sprint has a good network in the midwest in a lot of smaller cities as well.
    The reason why I don't consider Sprint as a viable carrier for me is twofold. One, I like to be able to use data, so voice roaming doesn't really help all that much. Also, their native coverage is lacking in the great plains and west. I like to do road trips on occasion, and even ATT has some holes (which is why I like to have both Verizon and ATT coverage available). But for the demographic that remains with Sprint, it probably isn't as important. As long as you have coverage in the region you live, that suffices. A lot of people aren't all that mobile, either due to age, health, finances, or interests.
    iPhone X is my current primary phone. I have older model iPhones and Moto phones available on other lines. Currently prepaid, though would consider postpaid on right plan.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    5X5 isn't anything. You know how fast that will get congested and it's slow to begin with. T-Mobile would benefit because it right next to the band 71 they already own. In my area that would give t-mobile 20X20 instead of 15X15. Which they need if they want to deploy both 4G and 5G on that band
    Doubling low-band from 5x5 LTE to a total of 10x10 LTE would do a LOT more than it would for T-Mobile, which already has quite a bit of low-band between B12 and B71. They also have 10x10 or more in several key markets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Septembersrain View Post
    Honestly, I used to work for Boost Mobile. Sprint has a ton of towers that are totally useless. If T-Mobile can get these up and going, they could eat Verizon and AT&T for breakfast.
    They just don't work properly?

    Quote Originally Posted by kevink1 View Post
    But for the demographic that remains with Sprint, it probably isn't as important. As long as you have coverage in the region you live, that suffices. A lot of people aren't all that mobile, either due to age, health, finances, or interests.
    Exactly. You aren't Sprint's target demographic. There are a lot of people who aren't that mobile, or are highly mobile, but only between major metro markets. A lot of lower income families also don't have home internet, so 50-100GB hotspot plans start to be quite economical when that IS your home internet, and doesn't require Larry the proverbial cable guy to show up every time you move, you just take your phone out of your pocket.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Your objections to the merger are all based upon speculation:
    Nope. It's based on an understanding of economics.

    There's been no statement that they are migrating Sprint customers to T-mobile plans. You're speculating that T-Mobile wouldn't grandfather in the Sprint plans. T-Mobile has plenty of grandfathered plans already. It's far more likely they would keep Sprint customers on their current plans to avoid customer losses.
    I never said they wouldn't grandfather existing customers. You're making that up.

    More speculation that prices will increase. No facts. Furthermore, you and the attorney generals are also speculating that if Sprint remains as a fourth carrier it will keep pricing as it is. It could start raising prices once the merger is axed. It may feel that's the only way it could get the revenue to service its debt. There's no guarantee the prices will remain the same.
    All Sprint really has is value adds (like more hotspot data, Hulu, etc) or cheaper prices. They're going to do some combination of the two, so either way, competition makes more choices and a better deal for the consumer.

    More speculation.
    Passing Economics 101 != speculation.

    But you're speculating that such growth will continue. There's no evidence that it will. Their growth could plateau soon as they've gotten those customers to switch that they could. TMUS still can't touch the corporate customers, government customers and those high revenue customers who demand more coverage. If their growth plateaus, they're really no threat at all.
    That growth isn't just going to stop dead in it's tracks. Sure, it can't go on forever, but they have a competitive offering that is attracting people.

    So while you're dealing in massive speculation, I'm dealing in facts:

    If the merger doesn't go through, T-Mobile and Sprint won't have the same economy of scale that AT&T and Verizon has. That means they can't spend on their network at the same level, nor can they deploy 5G technologies at the same speed and efficiency like AT&T and Verizon will be able to do.
    We haven't seen much evidence that mmWave 5G is going much of anywhere, and sub-6 5G isn't going to be drastically different from 4G. It will eventually happen, and eventually replace 4G because it's marginally more efficient, but there's no evidence it will really change the UX. Sure, T-Mobile doesn't have the scale of economy, but they also are running the sites that were built in the legacy 850 AMPS days. They've built fewer towers in rural areas, and they've picked and chosen where they want to cover. Their network isn't as good, but it seems to be good enough for a lot of people, versus Vz and T who inherited huge networks that had 850 AMPS buildout requirements from the 1980's.

    Sprint has all of this B41 band sitting there most of which is unused. They'll have no means by which to ever get most of that in use as it requires heavy site deployment. They won't really have the resources to deploy much of a 5G network. So their service offerings will just get more and more obsolete. They already have the slowest data in the business. That issue will keep getting worse.
    Furthermore if the merger doesn't go through, wireless home internet won't be deployed on that spectrum. If the merger happens, T-Mobile plans to be the third largest ISP by 2024.

    "New T-Mobile expects to add 9.5 million customers to its home broadband service by 2024. It will also offer services to over half of US households by 2024. "

    https://www.businessinsider.com/new-...-market-2019-3

    So it's a fact that disallowing the merger won't allow that to happen. If you were truly for greater competition you'd want to see them bring a competitor to that market.
    I think Sprint will get it deployed within major metro areas. T-Mobile likes to talk the talk about rural broadband or whatever using the B41 spectrum if they merge, but they haven't walked the walk historically, with tons of unused spectrum in rural areas, even where they already have native coverage. I'm not saying that they couldn't change the way they build their network and get more serious about band deployments, but they haven't historically done that, and if you play around with the coverage map that shows you what bands they have in what area, you'll find a lot of 700mhz-only areas, even though they own a lot of unused PCS and AWS.

    They may very well tap into rural markets that are currently not served by cable/fiber with the B41, which does have the capacity for that. However, it does not have the capacity for competing directly with cable in suburban areas, much less urban, in which case they're back to mmWave, which they could do with or without Sprint, and which isn't yet a proven business model for anyone other than Verizon, which has to deploy all those small cells anyway because they didn't buy enough spectrum to compete with AT&T and T-Mobile.

    You can throw out names all you want. That doesn't make Sprint a more viable entity. Return on investment governs investment. The reason Sprint hasn't found a buyer before now is because it's a bad investment. T-mobile is the only company making an offer because they've found how to actually monetize the Sprint assets in a profitable way. They have the infrastructure to use Sprint's resources to the fullest and so they can make it work.

    You and the government regulators just want to impede this progress. You throw out these fantasy notions that Apple will buy Sprint and all will be well if you block the merger. It's just nonsense. Apple isn't buying Sprint.

    And if Sprint goes through a debt restructuring as you mention above, what do you think that's going to do to network upgrades? You think the bankruptcy court is going to be making sure that Sprint is spending on CAPEX? Of course not.

    Sprint's assets only get utilized to fullest if you give them to Legere and let him get to work making the new T-Mobile into a carrier that will strike fear into the hearts of AT&T and Verizon.
    T-Mobile just wants to take Sprint off of the market to reduce competition and gain scales of economy by shutting a lot of towers down. Of course the spectrum would benefit them too, but Sprint's physical assets are not the motivating factor here.

    Of course in your post you pick one of the companies I said was far LESS likely to buy Sprint, since you don't want to acknowledge that some of the others actually are pretty good fits if Sprint can restructure some of their debt. It's also beyond just what Sprint can do as a standalone wireless carrier. The best fit is Amazon, where Sprint's network is worth far more to Amazon than it would be on it's own. The same is true to an extent for Google, and some of the others.

    Sure, you get more efficient use of spectrum, which would put the total long-term CAPEX well below even T-Mobile on it's own, due to having more spectrum, but at the same time, the market loses competition, prices go up, and customers pay more. That's just the reality, whether you want to admit it or not.

    It's a perfectly valid position to argue that either Sprint just can't survive at all on it's own, and that somehow T-Mobile is their best bet versus a fire sale, or that you support the merger because T-Mobile could grow a lot and offer xyz cool services/ have an even more awesome network.

    However, it is NOT a valid position to simply ignore the economic reality that removing Sprint from the market WILL raise prices, and WILL take a low-cost postpaid option off of the market, and that WILL disproportionately affect lower income communities, often communities of color (although also lower income mostly-white small cities in the Midwest).

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,423
    Device(s)
    LG G7
    Carrier(s)
    Google FI
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    This can literally go any number of ways but it's fun to speculate on possibilities while we wait to see how it actually plays out.

    Time lime -

    Merger denied.

    Tmobile announces they will not appeal.

    Sprint declares bankruptcy. California asks for injunction to stop bankruptcy their motion is dismissed as moot.

    Court appointed Trustee begins to make changes at Sprint to shore up finances. Rates begin to go up. Free plans discontinued - bankruptcy would allow that. Trustee begins to put out feelers for the sale/lease transfer of Sprint band 41 rights. Sprint stock begins to trade as a penny stock - they are delisted. California tried for another injunction - dismissed - moot.

    Son is pushing bankruptcy court for a fire sale of Sprint assets to get whatever return on his investments as fast as possible.

    Boost Mobile is sold. Moves to Tmobile begins transitioning. California - dismissed moot.

    Virgin Mobile is sold. Moves to Tmobile begins transitioning. California - dismissed moot.

    Sprint's spectrum and remaining customers are sold off to Dish who receives backing from Centurylink - a dark horse in the game. - Really off the rails here with this just tossing it out.

    Sprintlink begins 100% prepaid service only using only BYOP, allows phones from any carrier to be activated as long as they have the right radios.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    37
    Device(s)
    LG G8, Samsung Galaxy Note 3, iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Doubling low-band from 5x5 LTE to a total of 10x10 LTE would do a LOT more than it would for T-Mobile, which already has quite a bit of low-band between B12 and B71. They also have 10x10 or more in several key markets.



    They just don't work properly?



    Exactly. You aren't Sprint's target demographic. There are a lot of people who aren't that mobile, or are highly mobile, but only between major metro markets. A lot of lower income families also don't have home internet, so 50-100GB hotspot plans start to be quite economical when that IS your home internet, and doesn't require Larry the proverbial cable guy to show up every time you move, you just take your phone out of your pocket.
    The Sprint towers are fractured. WiMAX, Nextel, etc, they have not utilized all of them properly. They need major refarming. I believe T-Mobile would be more apt to push that it get done.

    Sprint really just doesn't have a good CEO.

    Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk Pro.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    18,122
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    We can all speculate on what "Might Happen". We will have to wait and see how it actually turns out soon enough.
    Don't make me turn this car around.....

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,107
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    Doubling low-band from 5x5 LTE to a total of 10x10 LTE would do a LOT more than it would for T-Mobile, which already has quite a bit of low-band between B12 and B71. They also have 10x10 or more in several key markets.
    Unless things have changed as far as I know you can't do CA low band. Which kind of hinders combining the 2. You can use one band or the other not both

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,423
    Device(s)
    LG G7
    Carrier(s)
    Google FI
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by veriztd View Post
    We can all speculate on what "Might Happen". We will have to wait and see how it actually turns out soon enough.
    Everything single post and news item is speculation based until it actually plays out.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    322
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Septembersrain View Post
    The Sprint towers are fractured. WiMAX, Nextel, etc, they have not utilized all of them properly. They need major refarming. I believe T-Mobile would be more apt to push that it get done.
    Yeah, Sprint's network is a bit of a mess. A lot of their towers don't even work properly for the technologies that they have on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    Unless things have changed as far as I know you can't do CA low band. Which kind of hinders combining the 2. You can use one band or the other not both
    You don't need CA. Low band tends to be pretty inefficient anyway, since it's used for phones right at the edge of the cell that can't be moved up to B25 or B41, but just load balancing users between B26 and B71 would effectively double capacity at cell edge where it's needed the most. This would be HUGE for Sprint.

Page 5 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