Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 292

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

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Patriots Nation & St Petersburg FL
    Posts
    9,555
    Device(s)
    LG G8, LG K20 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post



    Options are being taken away by the market. It's inevitable those options get taken away in some manner. Either by Sprint closing their doors, or Sprint realizing they have to raise their prices, or a merger with T-mobile or even one of your dream buyers buying them out. No new company is going to buy Sprint in order to keep losing money. A new owner will raise prices as well.
    Another option for Sprint is simply a Chapter 11 reorganization. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t happened over the years.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,843
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by billm261 View Post
    Another option for Sprint is simply a Chapter 11 reorganization. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t happened over the years.
    The problem is that with as much debt as Sprint is carrying, the stockholders (i.e. Softbank) could end up coming out of Chapt. 11 with nothing. This is what Son is trying to avoid at all costs.
    Donald Newcomb

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    485
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus 64GB and iPhone 11 PRO Max 64GB
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    It's actually 14 states a few of them with republican governors or AGs. Also don't bring up politics
    We already know what’s going on here and we’ll leave it at that.

    The state attorney general is the chief legal advisor for the state

    The state attorney general would be the ones involved in the case if they were to get involved. The state governors would not.

    The attorney general serves as the head of a state department of justice, with responsibilities similar to those of the United States Department of Justice.

    State governors are responsible for implementing state laws and overseeing the operation of the state executive branch
    Manners cost nothing, and also have the added benefit of making a man. You know, it is entirely possible to rise above others, without stooping to pushing them under, and putting them down.
    My Sister is a supervisor at T-Mobile's Salem Oregon Call center. Loyal T-Mobile customer of 15 Years.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    585
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    The problem is that with as much debt as Sprint is carrying, the stockholders (i.e. Softbank) could end up coming out of Chapt. 11 with nothing. This is what Son is trying to avoid at all costs.
    What Son is trying to do is push for a merger before digging into his deep pockets.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,646
    Device(s)
    LG G7
    Carrier(s)
    Google FI
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    The problem is that with as much debt as Sprint is carrying, the stockholders (i.e. Softbank) could end up coming out of Chapt. 11 with nothing. This is what Son is trying to avoid at all costs.
    Sans the merger Son hands the company over to bean counters to best decide how to get him the best value for Sprint stake.


    They look for a short sale of whats left to a company that can take on the debt for say $15 billion and walk away OR they sell it off in pieces retail prepaid there is already interest.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,806
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    There is a fundamental difference between claiming that taking a carrier out of the market won't reduce competition and raise prices, which is a blatant lie,
    Post where I made such a claim. If you can't do that, then you're the one posting the untrue information.

    I actually stated that the Sprint pricing will end no matter what. That's what you and the 14 attorney generals don't seem to understand.

    Sprint's financial picture is horrid. Look at their latest quarterly report. They had $8.4 billion in operating revenue which sounds great until you find that they had $10.1 billion in operating expenses. That left them with $1.6 bil operating loss. But the bad news doesn't stop there. You add in the 629 million in interest expense alone and that left them with a $2.1 billion loss (after some tax benefits.)

    It's all right here:

    https://investors.sprint.com/news-an...s/default.aspx

    You have completely failed to say how a company who has that bleak of a financial picture can continue to offer the low pricing and competition you want to force to remain in the market place. You make statements like:

    I believe that they can survive on their own if they can figure out how to get over the hump of fixing their network, possibly paring back some of the weird areas of coverage that make no sense, re-building their mess of a network, and building out 5G using their capital-efficient B41 spectrum
    Huh? Figure all of that out while they're paying $600 million in interest every quarter and they're losing money just keeping their doors open on top of that. You're definitely not being realistic. Then we have your other alternative:

    I'd like to see Amazon buy them, but a Comcast/Charter/Altice combo has some huge advantages too, like strand-mount small cells in almost every major market in the US, along with cheap backhaul (T and Vz cheat on backhaul in their ILEC footprints, so why not Sprint nearly nationwide). Those three companies are basically cash printing machines at this point, so they can afford to lose money on Sprint for 5 years to rebuild their network, expand coverage, deploy 100,000 strand-mount small cells, and make Sprint awesome.
    Those three companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to not waste the company's money. Whether their "cash printing machines" or not, all well run businesses seek to get a return on their investment. They don't seek to lose money for five years to try to make an awful carrier "awesome". Again, if those companies are well-run, they wouldn't get close to Sprint at all. They have no magical way to make Sprint any more profitable. Maybe they'd be interested if Sprint went into Chapter 11 and the debt was wiped out and they could come in for pennies on today's dollar. Maybe. But there's no reason for them to do that now.


    No. The market is not taking away options. This is again a lie. The government allowing T-Sprint would be taking away options. If Altice/Comcast/Charter bought up Sprint, rebuilt their network, expanded coverage moderately, made it rock solid within their MSO footprints, and streamlined the whole operation to make it more efficient, then Sprint would be a strong fourth competitor.
    How do you know Altice/Comcast/Charter would keep Sprint's pricing the way it is. The fact is you don't. It's highly likely they would raise Sprint's prices if they rebuilt and expanded the network as you suggest. So yes, the market is going to take away Sprint prices. Either through merger, buyout, bankruptcy or Sprint just deciding it needs to raise prices in order to survive a little longer. They will go up.

    I have the facts, economics, and basic common sense on my side
    No you don't. I named many economic principles previously that you did not deal with. Such as the fact that a company losing massive amounts of money can't continue to operate that way indefinitely---including offering the cheapest prices in the industry. I also mentioned the principle that a company won't invest in another company if the rate of return is going to be bad. You didn't deal with that either. Just because you name these dream scenarios like Amazon buying them, doesn't mean that Amazon is crazy enough to do that. What's in it for Amazon? Nothing.

    so I have no need to name call, and I would never do that anyway.
    You already did:

    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post

    the Magenta Disciples act like they're part of some sort of cult.
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    whatever nonsense the T-Mobile trolls have cooked up to make their almighty John Legere look great
    https://www.howardforums.com/showthr...8#post17080578

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    874
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    Post where I made such a claim. If you can't do that, then you're the one posting the untrue information.

    I actually stated that the Sprint pricing will end no matter what. That's what you and the 14 attorney generals don't seem to understand.
    You're trying to spin this into saying that Sprint will just stop competing and shrivel up and die instead, which is sort of nonsensical. They will have to do SOMETHING good for competition in the market, whether it is additional features, more hotspot data, more 5G, and likely, in addition to lower prices than the other carriers.

    Sprint's financial picture is horrid. Look at their latest quarterly report. They had $8.4 billion in operating revenue which sounds great until you find that they had $10.1 billion in operating expenses. That left them with $1.6 bil operating loss. But the bad news doesn't stop there. You add in the 629 million in interest expense alone and that left them with a $2.1 billion loss (after some tax benefits.)
    Yeah, clearly they need some investment in the network, streamlining their network, and better leadership.

    You have completely failed to say how a company who has that bleak of a financial picture can continue to offer the low pricing and competition you want to force to remain in the market place. You make statements like:
    I think they can offer the low prices for 4G speeds, and in fact they have to, as they have to have something to compete on. However, I think they can also have some premium offerings for 5G speeds, as they have a much more capital-efficient way to deploy 5G than the others. The other are either going to raise their prices to pay for a massive 5G mmWave rollout with a gazillion small cells, or they are going to have very small 5G coverage areas, while Sprint has a capital efficient way to cover an entire metro area with 5G using macro sites, so this gives Sprint an opportunity, but they need actual leadership and vision to get there.

    Those three companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to not waste the company's money. Whether their "cash printing machines" or not, all well run businesses seek to get a return on their investment. They don't seek to lose money for five years to try to make an awful carrier "awesome". Again, if those companies are well-run, they wouldn't get close to Sprint at all. They have no magical way to make Sprint any more profitable. Maybe they'd be interested if Sprint went into Chapter 11 and the debt was wiped out and they could come in for pennies on today's dollar. Maybe. But there's no reason for them to do that now.

    How do you know Altice/Comcast/Charter would keep Sprint's pricing the way it is. The fact is you don't. It's highly likely they would raise Sprint's prices if they rebuilt and expanded the network as you suggest. So yes, the market is going to take away Sprint prices. Either through merger, buyout, bankruptcy or Sprint just deciding it needs to raise prices in order to survive a little longer. They will go up.
    Comcast, Charter, and Altice are all getting into the wireless market one way or another. Altice is already in bed with Sprint. The advantage here is that these companies don't have to make money on wireless, they want to protect their wireline cash printing machines, and they also have infrastructure that they can piggyback on in order to reduce Sprint's costs significantly while improving service.

    As for retail pricing, it may or may not stay as low under a Comcast/Charter/Altice ownership, but there would be incredible deals for customers of those companies, so that would be a way of offering competition to the other wireless carriers. Amazon is more of a wildcard. Clearly, they would do something really interesting with Sprint, but how that all would work is more of a mystery, since unlike the MSOs, they aren't a wireless provider in any manner today.

    No you don't. I named many economic principles previously that you did not deal with. Such as the fact that a company losing massive amounts of money can't continue to operate that way indefinitely---including offering the cheapest prices in the industry. I also mentioned the principle that a company won't invest in another company if the rate of return is going to be bad. You didn't deal with that either. Just because you name these dream scenarios like Amazon buying them, doesn't mean that Amazon is crazy enough to do that. What's in it for Amazon? Nothing.
    Like I've already said, and you obviously either ignored or didn't read, there are legitimate arguments for T-Sprint, like arguing that Sprint can't survive on it's own. However, to argue that taking a competitor off of the market is somehow not going to reduce competition and raise prices is asinine, and anyone who has passed a college level Economics 101 class can tell you as much.

    You already did:
    I was not name calling, I was calling out some poster's actions. If people are acting like trolls, then they are acting like trolls.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    874
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm still staunchly against the merger, but the discussions of home internet on B41 are quite interesting from a technical perspective. If T-Mobile actually followed through, they really could offer home internet in a lot of places that don't have it today, with some pretty awesome speeds. Sprint only has a small fraction of their B41 spectrum deployed, and it can hit triple-digit speeds on 4G today. In areas where they are deploying 5G on n41, they're hitting about 500mbps, which even shared could offer decent home speeds in more rural areas. Outdoor permanently installed antennas would allow it to reach as far as B71/12/5/26 do for mobile.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    213
    Device(s)
    OnePlus 6T
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Oregon has joined the fray:

    https://www.geekwire.com/2019/oregon...merger-sprint/

    Critics of T-Mobile’s newly approved merger with Sprint are particularly concerned about the impacts on rural Americans, who are often served by the two carriers. The fear is that merging the third and fourth-largest carriers into one will reduce competition and raise prices on rural consumers.

    It’s a key concern in Oregon, home to vast swaths of sparsely populated regions. That’s why Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is joining a multi-state lawsuit seeking to block the T-Mobile/Sprint merger.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,128
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro Max Series 4 Apple Watch
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    I wonder if Oregon is trying to get some guarantee of rural customer buildout or specific number of jobs created for their state? They all want something.
    “The Internet wasn’t meant to be metered in bits and bytes, so it’s insane that wireless companies are still making you buy it this way. The rate plan is dead — it’s a fossil from a time when wireless was metered by every call or text.” John Legere 1/5/2017

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,843
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    I wonder if Oregon is trying to get some guarantee of rural customer buildout or specific number of jobs created for their state? They all want something.
    I wish I could attribute such pure motives to the action.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    141
    Feedback Score
    0
    The most helpful thing that could happen the all of these Attorneys General individually, and to all of their assistants, aids, chiefs and deputy chiefs is that they be compelled to use Sprint service, starting Monday August 19, 2019.

    If that were to happen, the case would never get to trial.

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    485
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus 64GB and iPhone 11 PRO Max 64GB
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    I wonder if Oregon is trying to get some guarantee of rural customer buildout or specific number of jobs created for their state? They all want something.
    Danny Keyword for the Oregon State Attorney General is in your inbox
    Last edited by trees12; 08-13-2019 at 03:22 PM. Reason: removed political reference

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    18,769
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Politics don't belong in this fourm. Enough already.
    Don't make me turn this car around.....

  15. #195
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,143
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenmule View Post
    The most helpful thing that could happen the all of these Attorneys General individually, and to all of their assistants, aids, chiefs and deputy chiefs is that they be compelled to use Sprint service, starting Monday August 19, 2019.

    If that were to happen, the case would never get to trial.
    Yes, but you can't expect them to be informed about matters they are getting involved in, can you?

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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, 12:35 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks