T-Mobile and Sprint’s merger is officially complete

tmobile-sprint-merger-small

Nearly two years after T-Mobile and Sprint first announced their merger, the deal is complete.

T-Mobile says that it has officially completed its merger with Sprint to for the New T-Mobile.

Also confirmed today is that with the close of the merger, T-Mo has completed its CEO transition. That means that effective immediately, Mike Sievert is taking over the CEO role of T-Mobile from John Legere. Legere will stay on as a member of T-Mobile’s board of directors through June 2020.

“You know T-Mobile has been all about challenging the status quo…and Sprint has a track record of being a tenacious challenger and a dedicated customer advocate as well,” said Legere. “So, with innovation, disruption and obsession for the customer experience as the foundation that the New T-Mobile is built on, just imagine what’s to come.”

Under the terms of the deal, Sprint shareholders will get a fixed exchange ratio of 0.10256 T-Mobile shares for each Sprint share, or the equivalent of 9.75 Sprint shares for each T-Mo share. Additionally, Sprint parent company SoftBank Group Corp. has surrendered 48.8 million T-Mobile shares acquired in the merger deal, making SoftBank’s ratio 11.31 Sprint shares per T-Mobile share.

Now that T-Mobile has combined with Sprint, it pledges that it’s going to combine the low, mid, and high-band spectrum of the two carriers to improve its network. The New T-Mobile’s network will have 14 times more capacity in the next six years than T-Mo has today, the carrier touts.

T-Mobile is also pledging to have 5G that reaches 99% of the US population and offer average 5G speeds of greater than 100Mbps to 90% of the population within six years. Additionally, T-Mo plans to cover 90% of rural Americans with average 5G speeds of 50Mbps.

While it was campaigning for the deal to be approved by the FCC and DOJ, T-Mobile pledged to offer the same or better rate plans for T-Mo and Sprint customers post-merger. Those legacy plans will continue as New T-Mobile plans for three years after the merger or until better plans that offer a lower price or more data are available, T-Mobile explained.

T-Mo has also said it would make three Un-carrier moves as part of the merger. The first is T-Mobile Connect, a $15 rate plan that T-Mo launched early last week in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

tmobile-sprint-tower

Additionally, T-Mobile will offer a Connecting Heroes Initiative aimed at giving free unlimited talk, text, and smartphone data to every first responder at public and non-profit state and local police, fire, and EMS first responder agencies. And then there’s Project 10 Million, which will connect 10 million homes over five years with up to 100GB of free internet access per year plus a free mobile hotspot to help kids do their schoolwork.

The completion of T-Mobile and Sprint’s merger also means that Dish Network is now expected to enter the US wireless market as a fourth major competitor to replace Sprint.

As part of the US Justice Deparment’s approval of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger, Dish has agreed to buy all of Sprint’s prepaid businesses, including Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile, as well as Sprint’s nationwide portfolio of 800MHz spectrum.

While Dish works to build out its own 5G network, it’ll have access to 20,000 cell sites and hundreds of retail locations from T-Mobile and Sprint as well as “robust access” to T-Mo’s network for seven years.

Today’s news of the merger’s closing is notable because T-Mobile and Sprint are still technically waiting for official approval of their deal from the California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC did issued a proposal to approve the deal with plans for a vote on that proposal on April 16th. Plus, California AG Xavier Becerra has struck a deal with T-Mo and Sprint regarding their merger.

T-Mobile and Sprint were also waiting for approval from Judge Timothy Kelly, who was performing an antitrust review of the merger related to the Tunney Act, but that approval was granted today.

Source: T-Mobile

Tags: , , , ,

  • Renaldo Epps

    Oh well

  • Bob B.

    Good ! My wife and I love our T-Mobile and the fact that we are locked in for life at $60 a month for two lines in the 55+ plan we got in August, 2017. Great company to deal with. Excellent customer service. We hope that none of this changes and that they do not forget what got them to this point.

    • Wenjun Yu

      My gf and I pay $25 each and have TMobile One Plus plan.

      • Bob B.

        Our plan includes all taxes and fees. We signed up when it was $70 and we save $10 a month with auto-pay. We added a third line well after the fact when it was offered and our son is on the plan also. So $90 total a month covers all. If he decides to go to some other carrier some day we go right back to our $60 a month.

        • Wenjun Yu

          Yes, ours is everything included as well. $25/line. And we can add up to 15 people in our plan.

  • Jay Holm

    Haha, screw you CA & NY AG’s!!!

    Farewell Sprint. T-Mobile…..get to work on that 2.5ghz Band 41 5G please…. Houston, Houston, Houston!!!

    • Ver

      Oh stop with the devisive crap. I’m from California and have always wanted the merger. This is a happy day.

      • Shaun Michalak

        You may, but In case you forgot, California was second in line to “stop” the merger.. and to this day, California is still the “only” state to not give its approval.. Because the CPUC has not given its approval, California is the “only” state that they can not do the merger in right now.. So basically, right now you are screwed with the merger, and you can thank your own state government for that one..

        • John Doe

          They are not doing this because they are gaining anything personally, they are doing it because they are looking out for their citizens. Maybe california should seize all of sprint’s towers and build their own carrier there.

        • marque2

          CA would get in a lot trouble if they tried that. It would be the equivalent of steeling federal property. CA really doesn’t have jurisdiction over this merger.

        • John Doe

          The towers are not federal property. The spectrum is. The land is not. The towers are privately owned and the state collects taxes from the land they are placed on.

        • marque2

          Towers and radio communication are controlled by the FCC. That is why you are allowed to put a 120 foot ham radio tower in your back yard even if the city or state has laws against it. The federal aspect of communication is most noticable for consumers who buy dishes for cable. Some cities and states tried to ban meter wide C band dishes – this violated federal law. Also as a renter you are allowed to have Dish/direct TV in any city on any property no matter what state, or city, HOA or lease says about not allowing them.

          So you are doubly wrong. If CA tried to sieze towers it would be a federal crime.

        • John Doe

          “Also as a renter you are allowed to have Dish/direct TV in any city on any property no matter what state, or city, HOA or lease says about not allowing them.”

          What? The towers are not controlled by the FCC and there are different laws in every city with regards with cell phone towers, this has nothing to do with dish/direct tv lol

          What are you talking about?

          Towers are just like poles for cable, they are regulated at a local level, most towers are shared between carriers for that reason. The FCC regulates the airwaves not the land or the physical towers. Heck some towers are on private land that is leased and once the lease ends the land owner can evict the tower company and seize whatever is on it.

          You clearly know nothing about nothing. This is basic common sense

        • marque2

          Well – all can say is everything you typed above is wrong. There are situations where the city owns something – like a power pole that a company wants to attach a communication device and the FCC defers to cities sometimes but when cities go overboard FCC asserts it’s control. Like how the FCC is now forcing cities to allow 5g transmitters on city power poles.

          Anyway, your I’ll informed blathering is getting annoying and isn’t changing people minds.

        • John Doe

          You just supported what I said though, the FCC has its rules but so do local governments they are incharge of the land they collect taxes and fees with regards to placement of poles, towers, digging, etc. Local, city, state, and federal all regulate it but the huge cost and laws are mostly at a local level.

        • Bumblebee

          No.
          Apparently Tmonews deleted my original comment because I said some truth, but California doesn’t care for its citizens. Go to downtown La. urine waters the trees from the homeless. San Diego: download the poop app locator so you don’t go near some place where there was.
          CA AG wanted money from T-Mobile in order to “approve” or say something neutral about this merger. This has nothing to do with the citizens. Dish has essentially taken the place of Sprint. And gets a lot of free bandwidth from T mobile while they build out their network.
          Which is interesting because Dish and AT&T are buddy buddy.
          They disapproved this not because of the citizens but because even though Sprint and T-Mobile are green companies, they aren’t g$r$e$e$n enough for California.

        • John Doe

          None of the issues you mentioned have anything to do with this, we are talking about state AG lol

          “CA AG wanted money from T-Mobile in order to “approve” or say something neutral about this merger.”

          Do you have proof? because that would be illegal.

          get out of here with your conspiracy theories.

        • Bumblebee

          California is all about being illegal. Please. I’m not turning this into a political statement but saying California cares for its citizens without stating what you mean by that does nothing to support your argument.
          CA AG refers to the Attorney General of California, you know, the State AG…if you didn’t know that.
          It’s well documented that T-Mobile has to “donate” a certain amount to other states in order for them to get approval for the merger. You must not have been keeping up with the news.
          No conspiracy theory here. You might want to look up what a conspiracy theory actually is.
          As for being illegal,

          “Maybe california should seize all of sprint’s towers and build their own carrier there.”

          That’s illegal.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Most of what T-Mobile agreed to in other states was something that they already had plans on doing.. So they were out nothing by agreeing to most of them.. California is the “only” state that has asked for millions of dollars that did not go to a good cause, like low income families and stuff.. That should say something right there in itself..

          PS.. I agree that towers are private property.. It would be illegal to seize them.. But on the other hand, it would not surprise me if they tried.. But just think about the state.. Look at how messed up it is run.. and he wants these idiots that can not run their own state right, to run a cell company?? That sounds like a major problem in wait no matter how you look at it..

        • John Doe

          “CA AG wanted money from T-Mobile in order to “approve” or say something neutral about this merger.”

          That is called a conspiracy theory, unless you have anything to back it up it is a conspiracy theory lol. Again CA AG is not personally pocketing anything, he is fighting for his voters.

          And California can seize all of sprint’s towers, obviously they would have to go through court but the land those towers are on belongs to CA. There is nothing illegal about it. They can also start fines against T-Mobile and Sprint at a local level and if they don’t pay then the government has every right to seize any property to pay those fines.

        • Bumblebee

          No. They can’t seize the property unless T-Mobile or Sprint is in default of the lease that was set up.
          The State AG could give them written notice, or incur a fine, but that would effectively ruin any lease that was set up, unless the lease has set forth written language that allows there to be “extraordinary” fines that can be due to CA.
          The State AG can’t do anything to T-Mobile or Sprint. The citizens want it? Maybe you. Maybe a few others. They would have to effectively enact a law and throw T-Mobile out of town. Laws require votes. You can’t just take all property from someone while they are paying a lease, which benefits California’s citizens monetarily, and confiscate and build out their own network. I’m sorry, this isn’t Venezuela or Cuba, or Russia or China.
          Long story short, California AG wanted money from T-Mobile to put intoLow income family programs, or so they say, because combining the two apparently caused such devastation on the lives of those with low income that they needed extra millions to make it right. Lol

        • John Doe

          You just re-wrote what I said lmao, they can’t take the property but they can create fines and rules that makes it unbearable for them to keep it. Government all around the country do it all the time.

          “Long story short, California AG wanted money from T-Mobile to put intoLow income family programs, or so they say, because combining the two apparently caused such devastation on the lives of those with low income that they needed extra millions to make it right.”

          “Or so they say” again with the conspiracy theory lmao you are sick in the head

          What is wrong with an Attorney General requiring a multibillion dollar company invest in their low income citizens? The companies have not fully combined yet, it will still take a few years for all the firings at sprint, and spectrum, and phones, etc. for the merger to happen so how do you already know how low income people are impacted?

          So conspiracy theorist and fortune teller, cool LMFAO

        • marque2

          Wanting money directly may be illegal but what AGs generally Sonia get the company to commit to upgrade schools or donate to some environmental find in order to get blessings. It is unsavory and should be illegal but at the moment it is merely immoral.

        • John Doe

          It is not immoral or illegal to want to make sure that the low income citizens of the states have access to mobile internet.

        • Bumblebee

          It’s not, but how is combining Tmobile and Sprint taking away access to mobile internet? Do you know how many federal programs there are that give away phones and cell phone data for low income folks? The California AG just wanted more money, that’s all.

        • John Doe

          Because costs will be higher and the new company will try to make it harder for people to sign up for these programs they will push their MVNOs and not advertise their low cost plans. The AG wants more money invested in california, he is not pocketing any money…again with you conspiracy theory lol

        • marque2

          And how has the state helped poor people with this action?

        • John Doe

          Well that the only thing they could do was to stop it from happening but they couldn’t so now they will just have to rely on antitrust suits or pass laws that mandate companies offer some sort of programs for low income citizens of the state.

        • marque2

          This site tends to not publish posts with URLs embedded in them, no matter how salient the link may be. I think that is the reason for the delay.

        • marque2

          I think their actions hurt me as a California TMobile customer. I didn’t want this – and probably the state AG isn’t getting as much support for killing big mean corporations as he thought.

          I really don’t see much of any consumer outrage from the public. I see outrage from leftist tech bloggers who don’t know much anyway.

        • John Doe

          Well he is probably going to win his reelection so you don’t matter, it is the majority of voters that matter…we live in a democracy. Oh the tech bloggers don’t know much? lol

        • Bumblebee

          we actually live in a democratic republic. this is a falsehood that is repeated and people just regurgitate it without knowing the difference. In a democracy, the minority would be completely unprotected from the will of the majority, and if that’s something you support, then from your viewpoint you would be happy for the merger, as it would not protect the minority.
          quick intro: https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936

        • John Doe

          Yes but the state AG of CA is elected democratically by a simple majority which is the context of my comment. Some state AGs are not elected at all.

          The merger would fail if we lived in a true democracy because Trump would have not been president since he lost the popular vote and the merger would not been approved under a democratic administration just like the AT&T+T-Mobile one was denied under Obama :)

        • marque2

          That is not exactly true. The merger is country wide. The real question is whether the CPUC has any authority over the merger at all, other than being notified. Tmobile is a National company, and is controlled and given authorization by the FCC not the state of CA.

        • Shaun Michalak

          I read somewhere that until the CPUC agrees to it, that they can not merge in California.. They do not have to have an agreement with the AG or anything like that.. But it has something to do with the CPUC..

          and if they did not have any power over it, then why would T-Mobile accept the blackmail terms of paying off the lawsuit against them, to the sum of something like 15 million dollars, for them to accept the merger??

        • Bumblebee

          It’s really not blackmail. Corporate companies do this all the time. They pay a fee for acceptance, because PR is what makes and breaks companies. Look up Consumer Cellular. They’ve been mentioned in Forbes, WSJ, USA Today with all positive pieces because they appeal to those who don’t use a lot of “data”, the elderly. So if a multi Billion dollar corporation calculates that over the next 10 years they will have an additional 23% increase in revenue and only a 7% increase would pay for the 15 million, then its worth it.
          I’m obviously making these numbers up, just for explanation.

          Most people can’t comprehend the amount of money that transacts between state and corporate companies monthly. This isn’t an insult, but 15 million to a company like T mobile is not a lot. How much were they recently fined by the Federal Government for sharing location information with 3rd parties, after being warned and after saying they didn’t do it anymore?

        • marque2

          Yes companies will pay the “bribes” rather than fight because it is easier than doing the right thing – and to your point they can be bankrupted by bad publicity – even if the bad publicity is false.

        • Shaun Michalak

          I agree.. My way of looking at it was more like this.. The CPUC purposely held off from making a decision until after the hearing.. Then, they waited until after they made a deal with the AG.. Then, right after the deal was made with the AG, then suddenly they come in with an agreement?? It sounds way too set up, like the CPUC was setting things up, so that if they lost the hearing, they could use “not” making that decision yet as leverage to get T-Mobile to pay for their costs, so they come out cost free either way..

        • marque2

          They only legally have to give notification to CPUC since they are not a state utility. Everything else is all bluster. They could do other things to make life tough for TMobile but that is unlikely since the state antitrust lawsuit failed.

    • John Doe

      Oh the horror that states were actually looking out for their citizens instead of backing mega billion dollar corporations, you mean screw you users.

      • marque2

        Have they really been looking out for their citizens or were they after graft and publicity?

        • John Doe

          That makes no sense, publicity for what? They are the State Attorney General lol. Even if this would help them win re-election it is because their citizens wants this from them.

        • marque2

          State attorney general is a political office and often a jumping point to become governor. Politicians don’t seek publicity or do dubious things to pretend they are for the people? You must live in heaven or something.

        • John Doe

          I already stated that in my comment, if he is doing this for political reasons that means his voters support it lol

        • marque2

          That doesn’t make any logical sense. But even if your comment had some veracity, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is the right thing to do.

        • John Doe

          How is being opposed to a merger between two big companies that will get even bigger and have less competition not the right thing to do? lol

          And don’t even say Dish will compete, you can tell by how their investors feel about that, T-Mobile stock is going up and Dish is going down. No one believes Dish will compete.

        • slybacon

          The only state attorneys general that opposed the deal were all Democrats. They opposed it because Trump is President, and they don’t want any good news for consumers going out during a Republican presidency. They are only looking out for themselves and their party.

        • John Doe

          The Texas AG opposed it and then settled with T-Mobile and got demands for his citizens the same for other AGs, has nothing to do with party. Democrats in general do not like companies merging and getting bigger to create less competition.

        • slybacon

          Doe, most here would argue that now that there is competition to AT&T and Verizon.

        • John Doe

          There was competition before, T-Mobile+Sprint will not provide any more competition than there was already, now there is less competition. There were two carriers taking customers away from verizon and at&t now there is one.

        • slybacon

          Uh, Sprint was giving customers away. They weren’t gaining any. It was either merge with somebody, or have an estate sale.
          And just because two became one, doesn’t mean they won’t continue to take customers from AT&T and Verizon. Things will be the same on that front.

        • John Doe

          That was only the last few quarters where they were losing customers to T-Mobile but when they were competing against T-Mobile and the other two they were gaining customers and the same would happen without the merger even Softbank said it was ready to invest in Sprint to compete.

          Of course they will continue to take customers but there are so many customers they can take, they will reach a point where there is very little competition and start increasing prices and creating new product categories like TV and bundling like Verizon did a few years back.

          This is a playbook that happens all the time.

        • Bumblebee

          John, Dish is in the game now. Dish has so much spectrum it’s incredible. Dish has wanted in the game for years. This allows a new comer to enter, and run off of Tmobile’s towers for years to come until they are up and running, without any fees or leases.
          I understand now where your mindset comes from. Two companies joining are taking competition away from someone else, and the people don’t benefit from it, only the stockholders.
          The issue here is that Sprint has been slowly dying since…2003? They had to be bought out by SoftBank just to survive since…2016? Someone correct me if i’m wrong.
          This is like a company that needs an influx of money in order to survive but has spectrum, and a company that has money but needs spectrum. One helped the other in order to survive, the customers are merged but still under their own branded company (sprint is sprint and tmobile is tmobile, no plans changed yet) and both companies and their customers come out better. In addition a new company with lots of spectrum takes the place of the company that was dying from bleeding money and had spectrum, and as a benefit gets to ride on the Big Dog’s tailcoats until they build out their network.
          It’s benefit to all, and competition. You mentioned earlier that California should just take Tmobile’s towers….Sprint’s as well?….and build out their own network. That would only benefit California customers, not the nation’s.
          Is your argument, albeit political, that because of the merge there is less competition? More competition is good?

        • John Doe

          Dish is failing, their own investors do not believe they have a future. Period.

  • Shaun Michalak

    I think this is T-mobiles way of saying to all these idiots.. I am not waiting for you.. Go ahead and mess around all you want.. We will just build out the networks across the board (outside of CA) while you dicker around with your little games.. I am not playing your games any more.. It is like T-Mobile is saying, you are not in control like you want to believe that you are, and you are now the one being given the choice.. You are not longer in the “controlling” area any more..

    • John Doe

      They should be worried, if democrats take control of the white house this year or even in 4 years. The FCC will be democratic and all hell of regulations and antitrust suits will rain upon them lol

      This is far from over.

      • marque2

        Why would Democrats hold a vendetta that long? They would just make some crap like phone neutrality so phone companies end up being fair to everybody but then stop investing in the networks because there will be little money to do so.

        • John Doe

          Oh democrats will undo everything Trump did and approved while in office, I promise you that. Net Neutrality will be back of course and the democratic AG will start breaking up big companies like a lot of democrats have already called for even in congress to break up big tech companies.

        • marque2

          TMobile is not a big company. It is the smallest of the three. And Democrats have little interest in breaking up big companies as long as they donate. That is why Amazon any Google have near monopolies.

        • John Doe

          It is a big company, there are three big companies. It is even bigger than it was. You can’t spin this.

          Democrats have said they want to break up big companies on multiple occasions especially tech companies.

        • Bumblebee

          and you believe them. that’s the problem. Democrats and Republicans can both be bought. Money solves democrats problems no matter where it comes from.

        • John Doe

          That is true but some are not bought and both republicans and democrats want to break up companies like Facebook. And some are bought by different companies.

      • Shaun Michalak

        Well, since T-Mobile has now merged with Sprint, and even the stocks are being changed, this forces California into a bad position.. IF they fail to let them merge Sprint can just say screw it and close down in California, and they will still lose Sprint, plus, there goes the 15 million to the state from T-Mobiles agreement too..

  • Erika Rodriguez

    Maybe i will give them a try again in a few years to see if they improved . Here in los Angeles ca I tried all carriers. So far At&t has been the best. Verizon second tmobile and sprint last. At&t right now is the one with the best speeds and signal . i been able to get signal deep in buildings and underground parking lots and elevators were no other carrier worked not even Verizon . and its 5ge which yes I know is not real 5G and yes i hate that icon haha . its been very good 100 + mbps every single time all over LA speeds are very consistent. Verizon is also very good here with calls but data can get slow sometimes. At&t offers both good fast data speeds and good service to call .

    • Shaun Michalak

      You know, you are going to have a “lot” of verizon customers mad at you for that comment.. They always claim that Verizon is the “best” no matter where you go.. You are proving them wrong.. Now they are going to have to calm down in their safe place.. How can you do that to them.. lol

      • Erika Rodriguez

        And I could Care less . here in LA At&t works better period. Haha sorry to them but its true.

        • Shaun Michalak

          While there was some truth to it, in the end, it was a joke..

          PS.. Yes, I know it is true.. It is in a lot of places.. My friend here switched from Verizon to AT&T too because Verizon he could barely get a signal to at work.. So you are not the only one..

        • Acdc1a

          My experience with Verizon was an absolute Sh*t show. Outrageous rates and truly bad coverage. T-Mobile works best by me with AT&T being a very close 2nd.

        • Shaun Michalak

          It is like I have always said.. Each company has their good and bad points.. You have to look where the towers are first, just to see what kind of coverage that you will get, and go from there.. Here, in Albion, Verizon has horrible coverage, yet AT&T and T-Mobile have great coverage..

  • John Doe

    John Legere is riding his golden parachute out of this crapshow as fast as possible lmao

    The winner in all of this is really John Legere, no one leaves a company after “successful” merger that they believe in. He is leaving because he knows that it is downhill from here and he won’t be able to even speak against it because there is most likely a “Non-Disparagement Clause” in his contract.

  • Shaun Michalak

    Nope.. Only for 60 days.. Thing is, if they did have a long term contract, Dish is now responsible for getting their own network up and going, and how can they do that if T-Mobile is using their spectrum??

    • Dominimmiv

      The piece T-Mobile is using is only a small slice of Dishes spectrum holdings.

      • Shaun Michalak

        Yea, but you have to remember.. Dish does not have a huge amount of holdings to start off with.. If I remember right, they have less then T-Mobile had before the merger..

    • marque2

      Dish will be using TMobile spectrum for customers concurrently while they set up their own network. They may as well lease it to TMobile until they get their own towers in place.

  • Trevnerdio

    Band 12 and Band 71 can’t carrier aggregate though, so just keep that in mind. You can only connect to one at a time, sadly :(

    • Shaun Michalak

      I believe that to be true under 4G, not 5G..

      • Trevnerdio

        So you’re saying B12 4G and B71 5G NR will be able to aggregate? That’d be interesting

        • Cash

          why do you think b12 would be 4g only? any band can be 5g when tmobile feels it is worth it to use that band for 5g.

        • Trevnerdio

          I’m talking about current bands. T-Mobile, as far as I know, only plans to operate on 600MHz, 2.5GHz, and 39/41ish GHz. That’s already 3 very wideband frequencies, that should be more than enough for the near future. They need to start thinking about consolidation or else they’re gonna be running like 6 different technologies on 18 different bands one day lol

        • Cash

          No that’s not correct, The majority of tmobile and sprint spectrum is still in the AWS and PCS spectrum. so band 2 and 4 will still be crucial. They will have band 71 (600mhz), band 12 (700mhz), band 2, 4 , 66 (pcs, aws, and extended aws), the new 2500mhz stuff that sprint had that tmobile wanted , and the mmwave stuff in 37-41ghz. The only thing theyre getting rid of is 800mhz cause sprint owned very little, and tmobile owned none. If they were to stop using any of the key bands like aws or pcs, they would have no where near enough bandwith to serve their current customers.

        • Cash

          And yes, phones are supporting over 24 bands now. They can make phones that support twice that if they need.

        • Trevnerdio

          I know, I’m just talking about the 5G frequencies. T-Mobile operates on 600, 700, 1700/2100, 1900, and even LAA somewhere in the 5GHz range for LTE.

          They could easily consolidate though, it would just take half a decade, minimum. They have to support legacy spectrums for a set amount of time.

        • Cash

          5g can be shared with 4g on each band, like the 600mhz almost nationwide right now is being shared for 4g and 5g. So as 5g phones become more popular they will share the other bands. Maybe they will start with b41 2500mhz or whatever, but id expect them to have 5g on their AWS within a year.

        • Trevnerdio

          I’d like to see that happen, for sure.

        • Shaun Michalak

          I do not think that he thought of it as 4G only.. But more along the lines of, a 5G connection can only connect to either a 4G or 5G signal at a time.. If you were connected to 600, then you could only be connected to 600.. and if you were connected to 5G, you could not connect to any 4G signals while connected to 5G..

        • Cash

          5g supports up to 16carriers for carrier aggregation. So you can be connected simultaneously to 5g b71, 5g b2, 5g b4 so on, up to 16 bands.

        • Shaun Michalak

          From what i understand, they can.. But only on the 5G side.. the thing is, 5G is basically an enhanced version of 4G, so it is not like it is a completely different technology.. Since 5G can make more connections at once then 4G can, I do not see why it could not just connect to 5G with as much is available, and use those extras channels not used to connect to 4G service too.. But that is just it, it has to be 4G LTE service.. It can not be tech before that..

  • Finally. That was an ordeal!

  • Ver

    So if dish is taking band 71, what will the LG v60 use for 5g?

    • Cash

      It says 800mhz, not 600mhz in the article. T-Mobile has basically no use for 800mhz, its whats Verizon and att use…

      • Ver

        Thanks!

  • JG

    Now that T-Mobile has combined with Sprint, it pledges that it’s going to combine the low, mid, and high-band spectrum of the two carriers to improve its network

    How long will this take?

    Given they were able to incorporate the spectrum Dish loaned them for the Covid-19 pandemic fairly quick, I’d imagine it shouldn’t be too difficult for them to merge the two…

    Pixels, and if I’m not mistaken iPhones and Galaxy S as well as probably most other flagship phones of late can function on both Sprint and TMo, depending on the SIM card used. So we at least should be able to make use of the merged network right away.

    • Acdc1a

      They got Metro converted in less than 12 months. This is a larger undertaking, but with cooperation of the users it could be close to that.

      • marque2

        It is going to be quick. Everyone uses LTE now and CDMA and GSM are not really part of the picture. Sprint phones already support all TMobile bands (at least phones from the last year)

        Is CDMA were turned off tomorrow the majority of Sprint users wouldn’t notice.

        Of course it will take time to repurpose all the CDMA bands – but then TMobile is doing the same with 2g and 3g GSM. So it is the same difference.

        And yes we will have to replace Grandma’s 15 year old phone.

        • But Grandma loves her Nokia Nuron. Agggh!

        • Cash

          You would think that with eSIM on iphones and galaxies they could switch people overnight. In which case youd want to do ~20% of people at a time and repurpose 5mhz of frequency at a time.

    • marque2

      It looks like most of the phones Sprint sold last year will be able to use all TMobile LTE bands. TMobile phones from last year mostly can use B41(2500). B25(superset of B2(1900) probably is not available to TMobile users and B26(850) is not supported.

      This is a really good deal for Sprint customers – not so much yet for TMobile customers.

      • none

        My 6T has support for band 41, 26 and 25, as soon as the merger is actually complete, I’ll be able to get faster speed at my house.

        • marque2

          Excellent!

    • slybacon

      I would assume that T-Mobile will use all of Sprint’s unused mid-band spectrum for 5G. So, you’ll need a phone that can connect to 5G signals. Also, they will be installing new antennas that can broadcast on that mid-band spectrum, which takes a lot of time.

    • BobbieDooley

      This is happening on a market-by-market basis.

      As an example, Southern California, Sprint remains heavily reliant on CDMA. Around July of last year, my phone could support simeoutneous voice and data, plus HD Voice. However, when I travel for work, Sprint doesn’t have this capability in California’s network. Point is, Sprint has already deployed LTE and VoLTE in other metro areas.

      By complete chance last month, I met some of the Sprint Engineers Who were staying at my hotel I was also staying at. They were visiting from Texas, and shared that they were deploying 2.5Ghz.

      Sure enough, when I went to my rental car and ran a Speedtest, I was getting 175-200Mb downstream.

  • Cash

    It says 800mhz in the article, not 600mhz. I don’t know if the article was edited, but tmobile would be keeping band 71. 800mhz is basically unused by tmobile. att and Verizon use 800.

  • John Brown

    How soon before Boost Mobile customers have access to HD voice and voice over LTE? I’m fed up with CDMA. Also with Dish buying us out along with all the 800 megahertz spectrum is that going to also affect Network performance? Is Sprint 1x 800 and band 26 LTE going anywhere?

    • none

      Eventually yes, band 26 is going away, but in exchange, you will get access to band 2, 4, 5, 12, 66 and 71.

    • marque2

      Dish will have full access to Tmobile network for I believe 7 years so you should get better service. Look up the stats online and see if your phone supports b2, b4, b5,b12,b66,b71. 2,4, 12, 71 are more important. Your phone will automatically cover b2. If it does, you are in fantastic shape to take advantage of both Sprint and T-Mobile networks.

  • DetroitTechnoFan

    If only this was an April Fools Day joke! More ways for the carriers to cheat customers, and fewer carriers to move to to avoid garbage service. And who cares about 5G when 4G LTE has gotten progressively worse over time and 5G mucks around with weather forecasting setting us back 40 years. I’m a 19 year customer, holding for now, but the moment things start to decline, I’m out. You combine good with good, you get better. You combine garbage with garbage, you get worse garbage. You combine good with garbage, and you get garbage.

    • marque2

      Dude we have all been locked up a long time now, but I think you really need to step out and get a bit of fresh air. Just stay 6′ 6″ away from everyone.

    • You seem fun!

  • JG

    Any word on when the new UnCarrier announcement is going to occur (assuming this “the merger is complete” announcement isn’t it)?

    Early February, Legere said it’d happen sometime this quarter, which ended yesterday (the 31st)… I’d imagine the whole lock down has delayed them some, but hopefully we’ll have an announcement soon – even if it’s just a blog post update rather than some big fanfare thing.

  • Sharti24

    Ok time to bring on that Reciprocal roaming Agreement on each others network…. Like google-fi

    • BobbieDooley

      It’s worth noting that Spectrum, Altice and Cox also have MVNO roaming agreements (with excellent terms) now that the merger is final.

      Point being that Cable is actually much more interesting from a tech perspective because they could dynamically push you over to Verizon (And possibly AT&T too) if T-Mobile is at capacity.