T-Mobile US finally joins the 5G party

After months of bashing and undermining the AT&T and Verizon approach to 5G using mmWave, T-Mobile US has announced its own launch using… mmWave.

T-Mobile US is in a strong position to capitalise on the up-coming 5G euphoria. Not only has it promised to base its proposition on its nationwide 600 MHz spectrum assets, but it is carrying considerable momentum from the last 18-24 months. The Uncarrier marketing strategy has been a welcome disruption in the US and the team is hoovering up subscriptions as a result. 5G presents another excellent opportunity to cause chaos.

Starting in six US cities (Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and New York) T-Mobile US will begin offering 5G services to the consumer in two days time (June 28).

“5G from T-Mobile is different because we have a very different plan to deliver broad, deep and transformational 5G – to everyone,” said CEO John Legere. “Unlike the other guys, we believe 5G should cover people near and far – especially those in rural America. And we believe 5G should not cost more.”

This is where T-Mobile US could make waves in the 5G pond; it seems Legere is promising access to 5G connectivity without the need for a premium tariff. It isn’t the clearest, but in suggesting “customers won’t pay a dollar more”, T-Mobile US seems to be promising anyone can access 5G connectivity, as long as you have the right phone.

As it stands, the Samsung Galaxy S105G will be the only device available at launch, but this might change over the coming months. We strongly suspect T-Mobile US is in conversations with other brands, and if it isn’t, it should be.

“With this device, customers can supplement their already kick-ass LTE experience with a 5G boost in a few cities now, but if our merger with Sprint is approved, the New T-Mobile will build a 5G network for all … the kind of 5G network America deserves.”

To start with, coverage will be incredibly limited, the firm will only be using the high-speed, short distance mmWave spectrum, but in months to come this will be expanded. T-Mobile US has promised a nationwide rollout in the second-half of the year, which will make use of the much hyped 600 MHz spectrum assets.

As you can see from the following coverage map where you can plug into 5G is incredibly limited, but that doesn’t seem to matter to executives in the telco world. The objective seems to be say you can offer 5G, but worry about coverage and experience later. Having spoken to a few people recently regarding 5G in Chicago, the experience is pretty woeful and much needed network upgrades are needed.

Alas, that does not seem to be a concern. Across the world 5G seems to be turning into somewhat of a gimmick instead of a connectivity solution. Early adopters can proudly proclaim they have 5G, but only if they are standing in the few spots it is available. This is where the T-Mobile US pricing plan comes into play.

This is a smart move from the T-Mobile US executives. They are offering consumers a glimpse into the future, but not charging them for it. It might certainly turn a few heads and steal a few subscriptions. If the objective is to gain customers and keep them, running 5G as a loss-leader for the first couple of months is an interesting approach. Once nationwide 5G coverage is achieved, the tariffs can be addressed, but for the moment this could be a very clever move to lure customers away from the likes of AT&T and Verizon.

Four more States stand in the way of Sprint/T-Mobile merger

With each week that passes, it seems to be getting more and more difficult for Sprint and T-Mobile US. Now, four State Attorney Generals have attempted to block the move.

Officially, the 180-day stop-clock which the FCC gives itself to approve any industry transactions has hit 202, and that doesn’t include the ‘pause’ it gave itself. And while the FCC might be taking things at a leisurely pace, it seems the Attorney General Offices around the US are building up a head-of-steam.

Two weeks ago, New York Attorney General Letitia James launched her campaign against the merger, questioning the logic and evidence used to promote the promises of increased competition, a faster 5G rollout or cheaper tariffs across the country. And she seems to have stuck a chord with counterparts in numerous other states.

Initially, James had the support of nine states, but with Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Nevada adding themselves to the suit, the total number of states as plaintiffs is now fourteen.

“The merger of T-Mobile and Sprint would stifle competition, cut jobs, and harm vulnerable consumers from across the country, so unity among the states will be key in defending our citizens against this power-hungry corporate union,” James said.

“We welcome the support from these four additional states, which should serve as a reminder that, all throughout the nation, we have much to lose if we do not take action to protect our people from this megamerger.”

And while this might look bad enough for Sprint and T-Mobile executives, it could get a lot worse. Over the last couple of weeks, letters have been submitted from an additional six Attorney Generals, telling the FCC investigations have begun to check the legality of the merger. Those states yet to declare are Pennsylvania (letter submitted June 5), Arizona (June 5), Delaware (June 18), Nebraska (June 18), Indiana (June 20) and Texas (June 21).

What is worth noting is that there does seem to be somewhat of a political split in in terms of objections here. All of the 14 Attorney Generals who have joined the suit so far are sitting in the Democrat camp. Of the six who are currently conducting investigations, two more are Democrat (Delaware and Pennsylvania) while four sit in the opposing Republican party (Texas, Indiana, Nebraska and Arizona).

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is objecting on the grounds of reduced competition, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison is attempting to protect jobs and lower prices, Hawaii’s AG Clare Connors didn’t say anything, and Nevada AG Aaron Ford simply said nothing of genuine value.

The most common theme with these objections seems to be focused on the idea of competition. Although T-Mobile and Sprint argue there is a need for more competition in the market, the AGs don’t seem to think so, or at least this isn’t the way to go about it. T-Mobile CEO John Legere might condemn the ‘duopoly’ which has formed at the head of the telco rankings, however the numbers do not lie.

Coverage is increasing, ARPU is coming down and the US should have all four of the major MNOs in the 5G world before the vast majority of other nations around the world. Things could be better in this market of course, but the trends seem to be heading in the right direction. This is a point which has been raised by the AGs; if it isn’t broken, don’t try and fix it.

Unfortunately for Sprint and T-Mobile, the argument of decreasing the number of telcos to increase competition flies in the face of logic, especially when you are removing the two cheapest options from the market. Of course, telecommunications is a capital-intensive segment to operate in, scale is very important, as is access to more valuable spectrum. But, the general consensus in the telco world is more providers is a better approach not less.

There will of course be incredibly loud voices on both sides of the argument, but logic lies with the AGs here. This is not to say the FCC will agree, but overarching trends argue against the need for Sprint and T-Mobile to merge.

Dish said to be close to buying Boost from Sprint

The disposal of assets required to sugar the pill of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger looks likely to be completed by US cableco Dish.

The latest goss comes from Bloomberg, which has been chatting to people who reckon they know what they’re talking about. These mysterious oracles say Dish is ready to drop $6 billion on prepaid operator brand Boost as well as a bunch of other unspecified stuff.

Since Boost has been valued at around $3 billion that’s quite a lot of unaccounted for expenditure. Since US regulators would ideally like a new national operator to be created before it will allow two of them to marge, this probably means some spectrum and whatever else Dish needs to become a viable MNO.

Apparently the WSJ had written a similar story last week so these telecoms Deep Throats are being nice and busy. Presumably they’re affiliated to the interested parties in some way and are floating trial balloons to see gauge broader sentiment on such a deal. None of the share prices of the companies concerned did much in response to the revelations.

Light Reading has reported on commentary from an Analyst who doesn’t think this is a great idea. He notes that it looks like a lose/lose since it takes spectrum away from TMUS/Sprint and cash away from Dish, in both cases depriving them of commodities they’re already short of. But big M&A usually ends up being about the egos of the big shots involved and if all those concerned fancy the idea they’ll probably go ahead regardless.

New York rages against T-Mobile/Sprint merger

Things are already looking dicey for the proposed merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint, and then New York’s Attorney General wades into the saga with scathing opinions.

“This is exactly the sort of consumer-harming, job-killing megamerger our antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” said Attorney General Letitia James.

Support for the merger is pretty rare nowadays, though James and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra have filed a multi-State lawsuit to add more fuel to the flames. In total, ten States have been included in the lawsuit, compounding the headaches induced by an already prolonged approval process.

The omens are not looking particularly positive for T-Mobile US and Sprint.

“When it comes to corporate power, bigger isn’t always better,” said James. “The T-Mobile and Sprint merger would not only cause irreparable harm to mobile subscribers nationwide by cutting access to affordable, reliable wireless service for millions of Americans, but would particularly affect lower-income and minority communities here in New York and in urban areas across the country.

“That’s why we are going to court to stop this merger and protect our consumers, because this is exactly the sort of consumer-harming, job-killing megamerger our antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”

T-Mobile US and Sprint are promising a cheaper and faster service, as well as a challenge to the dominance of AT&T and Verizon, but this isn’t enough to convince the legal heavyweights. It’s the same argument which is evident throughout the world of mergers and acquisitions; four to three does not encourage optimism.

Perhaps the most damning argument against the merger is market trends over the last decade. According to the US Labor Department, the average cost of mobile service has fallen by roughly 28% over the last decade, while mobile data consumption has grown rapidly. T-Mobile US and Sprint might argue a merger is better in the long-run for competition, but there is an old saying; if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

With four telcos competing for valuable post-paid subscriptions, the consumer does appear to be winning. Tariffs are expensive in the US, though they are becoming cheaper. Another interesting aspect to the lawsuit points to some skulduggery from the duo.

The Attorneys General’s investigation into the merger found that many of the claimed benefits were unverifiable and could only be delivered years into the future, if ever. Specifically, the AG’s are referring to the lightening speeds promised and the ease at which the duo believes a 5G network can be rolled out nationwide. This isn’t necessarily stating it is not possible, just that the claim is not supported by evidence.

For a decision which is likely going to be based on evidence provided, this is a very simple, but powerful argument for blocking the merger.

No clear winners in the latest US spectrum auction

Millimetre Wave spectrum has been a polarised topic in the US, and now the results are in from the latest auctions, some interesting tales have emerged.

Two spectrum auctions have taken place so far this year in the US, with both results being announced at the same time. $2.7 billion might be a lot to add into the FCC coffers, but it is considerably short of the monstrous amount of cash which was spent ahead of the 3G and 4G connectivity euphoria. Considering the amount of attention which has been given to mmWave, some might have expected this auction to attract more attention.

Strictly speaking, mmWave spectrum should be considered way above what we are talking about here, though the industry seems to have adopted anything above 26 GHz. Here, the two auctions are dealing with assets in the 24 GHz and 28 GHz spectrum bands.

Telco 24 GHz licences Total spend 28 GHz licences Total spend
AT&T 831 $982,468,996 N/A N/A
T-Mobile 1,346 $803,212,025 865 $39,288,450
Starry 104 $48,462,700 N/A N/A
US Cellular 282 $126,567,813 408 $129,404,200
Windstream 116 $20,439,360 106 $6,170,990
Verizon 9 $15,255,000 1,066 $505,733,170

The list of companies who have actually won spectrum assets through the auction is quite extensive, many are regionalised, rural telcos. We’ve only included the big ones here, and some interesting also-rans.

Although there still has been a considerable amount of cash spent during the auction period, the results do seem to imply mmWave might not be as crucial as previously believed. These assets might well be able to transmit huge amounts of data, but shorter ranges in comparison to the low- and mid-band bands, and the risk of signals being easily blocked, perhaps have telco fearing to dig too deep into the pockets.

Starting with Verizon, the telco now owns 65% of the available assets in the 28-31 GHz band. Through this auction and previous acquisitions of XO and Straight Path, Verizon has worked up quite a holding, though considering how much it has been beating its chest in the mmWave debate, it is perhaps surprising it low-balled the 24 GHz auction. Here, the firm only owns 1% of the total assets available.

From T-Mobile US’ perspective, the firm has shored up its spectrum breadth. Previously, the firm had not owned any licenses in the mmWave bands and has been the most critical of the potential of the assets. Spending the most in total across the two auctions, it seems the team is attempting to cover all bases, adding to the 600 MHz assets it has accumulated and plans to launch 5G on later this year.

AT&T’s focus was exclusively on the 24 GHz auction, where it spent the most cash, building out its portfolio in the higher spectrum bands.

Sprint is perhaps the biggest omission from the list, not winning any licenses across the two auctions, though it has previously aired its own criticisms of the potential of mmWave. The firm has started its 5G rollout, primarily using its 2.5 GHz spectrum for the launch. Whether its anonymity in this auction is evidence of its confidence in the success of the T-Mobile US merger we’ll leave you to decide.

There is of course life beyond the four major providers, and there have been some interesting wins across both the auctions.

FWA start-up Starry is an interesting one, winning 104 licenses in the 24 GHz auction. At the Big 5G Event in Denver this year, Starry COO Alex Moulle-Berteaux suggested the business was able to operate at such low prices while scaling in new regions was down to making best use of unlicensed spectrum assets. Spending $48 million this time around suggests a slightly new approach to delivering connectivity for the start-up.

These licences are now owned by Starry in 51 Partial Economic Areas (PEA), suggesting the business could be on the verge of much more aggressive geographical expansion. Details of where in the US Starry has won are not available just yet, but soon enough there will be much more colour on the plans. The assets might be used to shore-up performance in existing markets, or fuel geographical expansion.

US Cellular is another interesting case from the auctions, spending more than $250 million on 690 licenses. The telco currently has a presence in 23 markets across the US, with more than six million subscribers. It certainly isn’t going to challenge on a nationwide scale, however, with a stronger presence in the mmWave segment it could prove to be a worthy pain in the side to the big four telcos.

Windstream is the final ‘also-ran’ which we want to look at here. Spending just over $25 million on 222 licenses across both of the auctions, the team appear to be targeting the emerging FWA segment in some of the regions which are often overlooked in the US.

The firm launched a fixed-wireless access to business customers several years ago, and more recently has added products for consumers. In states such as Nebraska and Iowa, Windstream has pointed out signals can travel further thanks to “fairly flat topology”, while the mmWave assets will help the firm achieve the higher speeds demanded by enterprise and consumers alike.

What is worth noting is this is not the end of the spectrum auction bonanza. Over the next couple of months, the hype will start building for a combined auction in the upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz and 47 GHz bands.

That said, at the moment, the mmWave euphoria is appearing to be somewhat of a let-down.

T-Mobile/Sprint merger might be heading towards a ‘no’ – report

The merger approval process is heading towards the business-end of proceedings, and the omens are not looking particularly healthy for T-Mobile US and Sprint.

The longer the process takes to complete, the more of a feeling there is the transaction might be denied. As it stands, the FCC has seemingly lit the green light, though it does not appear the Department of Justice (DoJ) is on the same page.

According to reports from Bloomberg, the DoJ is considering additional concessions which would force T-Mobile US and Sprint to create a fourth national MNO to preserve competition. How this would be achieved is not detailed, but it is difficult to see how the duo would be happy with this outcome.

If reports turn out to be true, the concessions bar might be set too high for the parties to be comfortable. This is of course assuming the DoJ is happy with the plans laid out by T-Mobile US and Sprint to satisfy the alleged concession.

The long-standing justification for this merger is to create a more competitive alternative to AT&T and Verizon. To do this, T-Mobile US and Sprint executives have argued combining the network and spectrum assets is imperative. This is where the details of how a fourth nationwide player are needed.

A fair assumption would be the DoJ would insist T-Mobile US and Sprint would spin-off some of their assets to create this fourth alternative. Considering the vast investment which would have to be made, both monetary and time, to establish another MNO from the ground up, it is realistically the only option.

However, spinning-off network and spectrum assets to create a fourth nationwide MNO would most likely weaken the position of the newly combined business. Surely this would undermine the initial justification for the merger? If the merged business does not have access to all the current assets of the pair, would it still be in the same league as AT&T and Verizon?

Critics of the deal are already suspicious of the claims the merged business would be able to satisfy the coverage obligations of the FCC, 97% 5G coverage within three years with no price increases, and what would they say if the DoJ forces the pair to release assets?

These reports also compound theories about the different approaches from the FCC and the DoJ. It would appear the two approving agencies are offering different opinions on a merger for the first time. This can perhaps be explained by the objectives of the agencies.

For the FCC, it does appear improving mobile coverage and quality of experience is the main objective, while the DoJ is focused on preserving competition and choice for the consumer. While there might be some common ground between the two objectives, there is also room for opposing opinions.

For T-Mobile US and Sprint, the situation is not looking the healthiest. Accepting these reported concessions might be difficult if the pair are to remain true to their stated objectives, and that is of course assuming the DoJ accept the response on how they will meet the obligations.

It’s all starting to look a little messy for T-Mobile US and Sprint, and we are starting to get stronger feelings no will be the answer at the end of this prolonged saga.

DoJ doesn’t share FCC enthusiasm for T-Mobile/Sprint – report

The FCC might have a skip in its step after securing concessions from T-Mobile US and Sprint ahead of the proposed merger, but the Department of Justice is not convinced.

Following the approval from FCC Chairman Ajir Pai, and the vote of support from Commissioner Brendan Carr, Sprint share price rose almost 19%. The long-awaited merger to create a genuine challenger to AT&T and Verizon on a national scale looked to be heading in the right direction, only for the DoJ to be the fly in the ointment.

According to Bloomberg, the DoJ believes the concessions made by the pair do not go far enough. This is a move which breaks with tradition, generally the FCC and the DoJ sing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to acquisitions and mergers, though it appears antitrust investigators are still concerned over the threat to competition.

This is perhaps the nuance between the two departments. The DoJ, and various Attorney Generals throughout the US, are primarily concerned with competition, while the FCC rhetoric has been more focused on securing a more efficient and broader 5G rollout.

The concessions have taken the form of three commitments. Firstly, T-Mobile suggests 97% of the population could be covered by 5G within three years. Secondly, Sprint’s prepaid brand Boost would be sold to preserve competition. And finally, there would be no price increases while the 5G network is being deployed.

Of course, there is a very real risk to competition. Taking the number of national telcos from four down to three will mean less choice in the market. Less choice means less opportunity for disruption, even if the hatred from T-Mobile US CEO John Legere towards AT&T and Verizon is effectively teemed from his ears. There are too many examples through history of abuses when it comes to competition for some to be completely comfortable.

You also have to weigh up the current cost of mobile connectivity in the US. Although much has been done to help the consumer, ARPU is still notably more than in Europe, where competition is significantly higher. According to Moneysavingpro.com, the average postpaid contract in the US is as much as $80.25 compared to $30.06 in the UK. US consumers are already feeling the sharp end of the competition stick, and few would want to risk this difference to increase further.

The question is how much pain the consumer can tolerate in pursuit of leadership in the 5G race. Carr has spoken of his primary role at the FCC being focused on creating a leadership position for the US in the 5G era and part of this will depend on getting 5G in the hands of the consumer as quickly as possible. The sooner consumers have 5G, the sooner US firms can scale new services and products before assaulting the international markets. This is a playbook taken from the very successful 4G era.

With the US taking a leadership position in the 4G world, companies like Google, Amazon, Uber, AirBnB and Lyft thrived. These are companies which would have existed without the 4G euphoria, but success was compounded because of the connectivity gains. We are likely to see the same trend in the 5G world, with new products and services being designed for 5G connectivity. The question which remains is where they will call home.

This is the equation the FCC and the DoJ have to balance. The need to protect the consumer against the drive towards future economic success on the global stage. There is not going to be a perfect answer for this one, the US is gambling on the future success of the economy after all.

FCC Chairman convinced by T-Mobile/Sprint concessions

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has publicly stated he believes the concessions made by T-Mobile US and Sprint are enough to ensure the merger would be in the public interest.

Over the course of the weekend, rumours emerged over concessions the pair would have to make to get the support of the FCC, though rarely are sources so spot on. The merged business will now have to commit to a nationwide 5G deployment within three years, sell Sprint’s prepaid brand and promise not to raise prices during the rollout years, if it wants the greenlight of the FCC.

What is worth noting is this is not a greenlight just yet. Pai has said yes, though he will need a majority vote from the Commissioners. Commissioner Brendan Carr has already pledged his support, and we suspect Michael O’Reilly will in the immediate future also. The Democrats might want to throw a spanner in the works, but this would be largely irrelevant with O’Reilly’s support.

“In light of the significant commitments made by T-Mobile and Sprint as well as the facts in the record to date, I believe that this transaction is in the public interest and intend to recommend to my colleagues that the FCC approve it,” Pai said in a statement.

“This is a unique opportunity to speed up the deployment of 5G throughout the United States and bring much faster mobile broadband to rural Americans. We should seize this opportunity.”

As you can imagine, T-Mobile US CEO John Legere certainly has something to say on the matter.

“Let me be clear,” Legere stated in a blog entry. “These aren’t just words, they’re verifiable, enforceable and specific commitments that bring to life how the New T-Mobile will deliver a world-leading nationwide 5G network – truly 5G for all, create more competition in broadband, and continue to give customers more choices, better value and better service.”

The first commitment made by T-Mobile US and Sprint is a nationwide 5G network. Considering Legere has been claiming his team would be the first to rollout a genuine 5G network for some time, it comes as little surprise the FCC will want to hold him accountable.

Over a three-year period, presumably starting when the greenlight is shown, the new 5G network will cover 97% of the population. 75% of the population will be covered with mid-band spectrum, while the full 97% will have low-band. This is a very traditional approach to rolling out a network, as it meets the demands of capacity and efficiency, though there is a sacrifice on speed.

Perhaps more importantly for the FCC, the plan also covers objectives to bridge the digital divide. 85% of the rural population will be connected during this period, increasing to 90% after six years. This is not to say all the farmers fields will be blanketed in 5G, though it does help provide an alternative for the complicated fixed broadband equation in the rural communities.

Moving onto the divestment, selling Sprint’s Boost prepaid brand seems to be enough to satisfy the competition cravings of Pai. What is worth noting is this will not be a complete break-away from the business as it will have to run on the T-Mobile US network. Unfortunately, MVNOs in the US are not as free to operate as those in Europe, as switching the supporting network would mean have to change out all the SIM cards.

This becomes complicated as you do not necessarily know who your customers are in a prepaid business model. The situation certainly encourages more competition, it will after all not be part of the T-Mobile US/Sprint family anymore, but it is far from a perfect scenario.

Finally, Legere has promised tariffs will not become more expensive during the deployment period, another worry for the FCC should the duo want to meet the ambitious objectives to compete with AT&T and Verizon. However, it does appear Legere is promising 5G tariffs will not include a premium either.

And now onto the other side of the aisle. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has tweeted her opinions on the concessions and it appears she is not convinced.

“We’ve seen this kind of consolidation in airlines and with drug companies. It hasn’t worked out well for consumers. But now the @FCC wants to bless the same kind of consolidation for wireless carriers. I have serious doubts.”

Rosenworcel has also suggested the decision should be put out for public consultation. We suspect Pai will want to avoid this scenario, as it would be incredibly time-demanding; the Chairman will want the merger distraction off his desk as soon as possible.

Commissioner Geoffrey Starks is yet to make a comment, but DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT go on his Twitter page if you haven’t watched the latest Game of Thrones episode.

We understand the Democrat and Republican Commissioners are going to be at each other’s throats over pretty much every decision, however trolling any innocent individual with a GoT spoiler is a low blow.

Starks and your correspondent are going to have some issues.

T-Mobile and Sprint ponder concessions to force through merger

T-Mobile US and Sprint are weighing up the sale of one of the pair’s prepaid brands in an attempt to woo decision makers into greenlighting the divisive merger.

Dating back to April 2018, you will be forgiven for forgetting this saga is still an-going debate in the US. With privacy scandals, the Huawei drama and BT’s dreadful logo stealing all the column inches, the debate over whether T-Mobile US and Sprint should be allowed to merge their operations has been relegated below the fold. But it is still a thing.

The countdown clock, the 180 days the FCC gives itself to approve mergers, spent a lot of time on pause, though the longer the process takes the more likely it appears the answer will be no. If the relevant authorities were looking at the information in front of them, an answer would surely have been given by now, but sceptics might assume the FCC is desperately searching for a reason to say no.

According to Bloomberg, the duo is prepared to make concessions to force through the deal. These concessions include the sale of one prepaid brand, a pledge to finish the rollout of a 5G network in three years and promises not to raise prices during this deployment.

In terms of the timeline, crunch day is fast approaching. The FCC 180-day review is set to come to a close at the end of June, though the deal also has to be signed-off by the Department of Justice. With decision time on the horizon, egos will have to be stroked and arguments set in stone.

The issue at the heart of this debate is focused on competition. Critics of the deal suggest consumers who are at the low-end of the tariffs scale will effectively be punished with higher prices in a market with only three providers. T-Mobile US and Sprint have suggested prices would be kept down in an attempt to compete with AT&T and Verizon, though more than paper-thin promises will be needed.

Selling off one of the prepaid brands would help to preserve competition in this segment, offering more choice for those consumers who do wish to, or cannot afford to, invest in postpaid contracts. It is believed Sprint’s Boost brand is the one facing the chop, with the Virgin Mobile and Metro brands to remain in the potentially merged operations.

Peter Adderton, who sold Boost to Sprint in 2006, has previously stated he would invest in the divested brand. Adderton has been a critic of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, though if there is a chance to make money entrepreneurs have a way of changing their tune.

Reports have been emerging over the last couple of weeks suggest regulators are still concerned over competition despite assurances made by executives. The Wall Street Journal suggests the deal would not go ahead with the proposed structure of the company, a claim which T-Mobile US CEO John Legere rejects, suggesting there is still some stroking to be done.

Although trying to figure out which way this deal will go is little more than guess work at the moment, there is a feeling it is not going the way T-Mobile and Sprint would want. Rumours are only rumours, but the familiarity of the reports is starting to add weight. It does sound like T-Mobile and Sprint will have to make some considerable concessions to get the greenlight.

We’re in last place but we’re actually leading 5G race – T-Mobile US

T-Mobile US is currently in last place for the 5G race, but if you listen to the magenta tinged spin, its actually in first place.

Right now, AT&T and Verizon have hit the on-switch for their 5G networks. Sprint is moving forward with its own plans, leaving only T-Mobile US floundering on 4G. That said, the purplish-red twist on the state-of-affairs is one of irrelevance.

“With early 5G launches there have been disappointed customers and we don’t want to launch anything until we can delight out customers,” said Ulf Ewaldsson, SVP of Technology Transformation at T-Mobile US, speaking at Light Reading’s Big 5G Event in Denver.

According to Ewaldsson, T-Mobile US could switch on its networks now, if it wanted, and it could even offer services on the mmWave spectrum. The team is ready to go, it just doesn’t want to at the moment.

The depth of truth on this statement depends on where you sit. Some might believe T-Mobile US claims. It only wants to launch 5G when it is a service which delivers on the lofty promise, and at a time where the telco can deliver a nationwide proposition. It doesn’t want to dupe the customer into an expensive contract and limited coverage.

This is a perfectly reasonable approach, and the option to bide one’s time might be completely justified if a nationwide 5G network is launched, crushing the feeble attempts from competitors. It is a sensible business strategy. However, it might also be the case that rivals were more successful in the early days and stole a march on T-Mobile US. This is just clever spin and nuance.

Both explanations are probably true to a degree, and it may not even matter that much. The winner when it comes to 5G in North America is not going to be the first to market, but the delivery of the best performing network.

And of course, in the pursuit of delivering the best performing 5G network Ewaldsson managed to plug the promise of the Sprint transaction.

hdrpl

The image above is an interesting one. This is what T-Mobile US claims its 5G coverage would look like by 2024, if the team is allowed to combine the spectrum assets from the two businesses.

With a blend of low, mid and high spectrum assets, Ewaldsson is claiming T-Mobile US is in the strongest position to deliver on the 5G promise. By the end of next year, the executive has promised it will launch a nationwide 5G network, making use of the 600 mhz assets which it currently has. A network which is worth waiting for, as Ewaldsson puts in.

However, what is also worth pointing out is the contradiction from the very same conference stream.

On a panel session following Ewaldsson’s remarks about the importance of delivering a nationwide 5G network instead of the current pockets of connectivity, John Baker of Mavenir said there was no need for such widespread coverage, while Mishka Dehghan, VP of 5G Deployment at Sprint, also contradicted Ewaldsson.

Baker suggested 4G and 5G can co-exist for the foreseeable future, suggesting you only build 5G where you actually need it, like AT&T and Verizon have done today. Dehghan’s contradiction was perhaps more worrying considering the two telcos are supposed to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Like Baker, Dehghan suggested 5G should be deployed as necessary, focusing on specific usecases.

Ultimately there isn’t necessarily a right answer. Ewaldsson pointed out at the beginning of his session that there will be multiple deployment strategies, each of which would be tailored to the organization. Being last to launch 5G in the US certainly won’t hurt T-Mobile US in the long-run, but the anticipation will place more pressure on the team.