T-Mobile, Sprint Close To Agreeing Deal Terms (reuters.com)

From a report: T-Mobile US is close to agreeing tentative terms on a deal to merge with peer Sprint Corp, people familiar with the matter said on Friday, a major breakthrough in efforts to merge the third and fourth largest U.S. wireless carriers. The development follows more than four months of on-and-off talks this year between T-Mobile and Sprint, and comes as the U.S. telecommunications sector seeks ways to tackle investments in 5G technology that will greatly enhance wireless data transfer speeds.

Comments

eeew

[markdavis]

Eeek, I am not so sure I want my provider, T-Mobile, dragged down by Sprint.

Re:eeew

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the true spirit of American capitalism. Innovators and disrupters are bought out and disposed of. T-Mobile has gone to far in offering choice and competition. It needs to go, and the current FCC chair will be more than happy to usher it out of the building.

Re:eeew

[Anonymous Coward]

It will probably turn out that T-Mobile US will simply absorb Sprint, with Sprint's shareholders owning some of the shares of T-Mobile US.

Re:eeew

[ctilsie242]

Who is buying out whom? T-Mobile buying out Sprint is fine with me, but I really don't like the other way round, since I've not really been happy with Sprint's CS over the years.

Re:eeew

[RPGonAS400]

I have had Sprint for almost 13 years now and they have been great. Started with 5 lines, now we have 9.

In rural Ohio you can find Sprint stores in most towns. The closest T-Mobile store to me is 45 minutes away.

Re:eeew

[clonehappy]

Deutsche Telekom will remain the majority shareholder of the combined entity. T-Mobile is essentially buying Sprint.

Think before you speak.

Re:eeew

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, but it's the same basic problem. We only have 4 providers in the US, everybody else is either owned by those 4 or leases capacity from those 4. Allowing any more consolidation is going to be bad for what little competition remains.

Really, the thing to do would be to break up the larger ones so we have a larger number of choices and some actual competition. The only reason that there's any competition at all is because T-Mobile is needing to add subscribers by stealing them from the other players. Bot Verizon and AT&T have demonstrated a complete lack of interest in innovating and leaving us with just one carrier that does any innovation is asking for trouble.

Doubly so since the government doesn't break up companies that grow too larger any more.

Re:eeew

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear not! At least your cellphone bill can start getting boosted up higher to pay for it!

Re:eeew

[Anonymous Coward]

>The closest T-Mobile store to me is 45 minutes away.

Not for long!

Re:eeew

[Anonymous Coward]

Think before you speak.

Only if you suck before you blow.

Re:eeew

[squiggleslash]

It's unlikely Sprint would be in control afterwards. Sprint needs "saving", T-Mobile is outrageously successful right now. It's Sprint who are pushing various entities, T-Mobile included, to marge with them.

Re:eeew

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Rural Ohio! Yes, that place. We often come within 35,000 feet of it when we take commercial. When we take the Lear we stay at least 40,000 feet away.

Re:eeew

[Hadlock]

I had sprint for 7 years and all they wanted to do was nickle and dime me to death. $4 a month charge to make international calls. Went straight down to T-Mobile store, got a blackberry with them in 2007 and never had to deal with bizzare nickle and diming fees again, always treated me really well, even adjusted my bill because they quoted me a lower price for calls from peru than was advertised. Then they rolled out unlimited 2G international data. Finally I left T-Mobile simply because Project Fi was marginally cheaper and gave me 4G international data at domestic rates. Never ever going back to Sprint, I'm glad to hear they're finally being put out to pasture. Ohio must be their primary market because I haven't seen a sprint store outside of a radioshack in probably a decade.

Re:eeew

[known_coward_69]

some of us were around when the USA had a dozen or so cellular carriers. Back then you didn't have to go far to lose your carrier's signal and roam on someone else's network and run up huge bills. The reason they all merged was to give customers a national network with virtually no roaming

Re:eeew

[markdavis]

>"I have had Sprint for almost 13 years now and they have been great."

And I had Sprint for 16 years before they FINALLY pissed me off enough to make me leave. It wasn't just one thing- it was all kinds of technical and billing problems and truly horrible customer and technical support. But the pricing was always good. Trust me, I tried everything to see if they would be reasonable and they would not. After I went months reporting repeating text messages, lost text messages, and messages delayed sometimes 12 HOURS (and it didn't matter if it was another Sprint user or another network), I moved to T-Mobile 3 years ago and have had nothing but STELLAR customer service, not to mention much, much faster data, and have not had a SINGLE lost/delayed/repeated text message.

Of course, not everyone will have the same experiences.

Re:eeew

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I want T-Mobile trying to drag money out of me that I don't owe - many years ago when I signed with them, they mis-billed me every month and then offered to split the difference with me because they 'always apply a no-fault policy'. I had to break the contract and file complaints (which were unsuccessful because T-Mobile employees simply lied in the business records).

Sprint has had exceedingly few problems and always handled them immediately to my satisfaction. A merger with T-Mobile could make me reconsider that relationship.

Re:eeew

[HornWumpus]

Yeah, the no rings, 18 hours delay, then 6 messages at once thing ended my business with Sprint.

Trademarks

[RadioD00d]

But I can't wait to see what 'Paul' looks like in a PINK polo!

If Sprint takes over ownership future is bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

Sprint's owner (Japanese telecom owner I think) and management really represent the worst of old school. Sprint's owner had tried to buy T-Mobile before....so am guessing he's wanting to do this again (and turn the result into a 3rd copy of Verizon and AT&T from a consumer standpoint)...it'll be all downhill for T-Mobile's customers. Would love for this to be blocked. JMHO...

Re:If Sprint takes over ownership future is bleak

[Anubis IV]

The reporting I read earlier today suggested that the positions have been swapped at the table, so T-Mobile's owner (Deutsche Telekom) would be the majority shareholder in a 60-40 merger with Sprint (owned by SoftBank). Likewise, the current T-Mobile CEO who has been leading a successful comeback for the carrier would be the CEO of the merged company.

Re:If Sprint takes over ownership future is bleak

[amiga3D]

I had Boost phones for a few years. I was very happy then Sprint bought it. About 7 months after buying it they "upgraded" the towers. My phone ceased working where I lived. I called them and they suggested I switch to a CDMA phone. I did, but no joy although that one worked in some places. Now I'm on AT&T and was thinking of moving to T-Mobile. So glad I haven't switched yet. Nix on that.

Re:If Sprint takes over ownership future is bleak

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sounds good, doesn't really work that way. In the CEO business, the dominant player comes from who has the larger financial *backing*, because CEO's are pressured when things go awry, and in business, things always don't go smoothly.

T-Mobile's current CEO may be in the position of power initially, but expect when some rollout hits a bump or transition doesn't go quite right for the maneuvering to begin, and given Sprint's financial backing to come into play--shoring up debts and account at the cost of choosing who they want in power to run things for that backing.

This is looking like how Daimler-Chrysler turned.

Can't wait until there's only one provider

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Maybe we can call it "American Telephone" or just use a cute ringing emoji symbol and call it "American Bell"

Re:Can't wait until there's only one provider

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico has one already, it's called Taco Bell.

I have a boner, and I'm will to dunk it in orange creme and call it Donald.

Hugs and kisses,

Juan Epstein

Reply to This

Re:Can't wait until there's only one provider

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily a bad idea. The existence of MVNOs means that potential an unlimited number of companies could compete to resell access to a single cell network. Christ, I wish that model were brought to our landline ISPs. That could fix a bunch of problems.

they could also tout text capability.

[Anonymous Coward]

This new company could be called American Telephone & Text.

Re:they could also tout text capability.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about data.

American Telephone, Text, and TCP/IP.

All hail our new overlord, ATT&T!

Re:they could also tout text capability.

[tgetzoya]

Which will be the new name of AT&T after it buys T-Mobile for an absurd about of money.

Re:they could also tout text capability.

[dgatwood]

ATT&T-Mobile.

Re:they could also tout text capability.

[rcase5]

Nope, not gonna happen. AT&T already tried to acquire T-Mobile a few years back, and it was essentially blocked by the U.S. Government. AT&T already had to pay T-Mobile a small bundle for that fiasco. Oh sure, they have friendly people in the White House and the Congress now, so who knows. But I really doubt they'll try again any time soon, especially after they just gobbled up DirecTV.

Mediocre + Third-rate = ????

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like using parts from a Yugo to trick out a Ford Taurus.

Re: Mediocre + Third-rate = ????

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about!

Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[RumGunner]

We should not be okay with this. Reduced choices leads to increased cost. Fewer companies means less competition, and a greater probability of collusion and price-fixing. We should be furious.

However, the people who actually run this country are quite okay with this, so it will almost certainly go through.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[ctilsie242]

Then there is shit like actively MITMing traffic which some telcos did, where they actively added in UIDH headers into HTTP traffic as a way to ID people. T-Mobile was one of the few that didn't do this.

I get no warm fuzzies about this merger unless Sprint is completely absorbed and Magenta's DNA stays the same.

Re: Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

How come half the time on Slashdot the regular liberals want consolidation of telecom companies under 1 government entity, yet cry the other half of the time about government cronyism when they start merging into 1 entity?

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

4 is better than 3 isn't a basis for making a determination. We'll get more competition here as scale is key in this business. The costs for the smaller carriers to compete with VZW and ATT are pretty high. When you can spread out your network, ad and other costs over a bigger number of users you are more efficient and able to reduce prices even more aggressively. And those who looked at real coverage maps will tell you that every TMo and Sprint user will see improvements in coverage, etc. This is a good thing for competition. This is needed and long overdue and folks like Legere and Masa Son will use the sale and saving to drive VZW and ATT crazy with better deals and still make profits.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there is shit like actively MITMing traffic which some telcos did, where they actively added in UIDH headers into HTTP traffic as a way to ID people. T-Mobile was one of the few that didn't do this.

If they can do that to an OpenVPN session I'd be mighty impressed. All data usage on my phone is tunneled.

Re: Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

How come half the time on Slashdot the regular liberals want consolidation of telecom companies under 1 government entity, yet cry the other half of the time about government cronyism when they start merging into 1 entity?

Because the "regular liberals" keep picturing something like the socialism found in small homogeneous European nations, not realizing that 1) the US is *huge* and this doesn't scale well at all and 2) the non-parliamentary winner-take-all nature of US politics basically guarantees only two parties that are easily bought and paid for. What they want would be nice but it's not going to happen in the USA. They'd have better luck implementing this within a smaller US state.

A possible third is that small socialist states don't generally have the problem of regulatory capture found in the US. In the US this is governed by big money. In the US virtually all of the significant regulators are former or future execs/major stockholders in the same industry they're supposed to oversee.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[Shatrat]

Nobody is that interested in selling ads to virgins though.

Re: Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

How come half the time on Slashdot the regular conservatives want to force everyone into Verizon workcamps, where they're paid pennies a day in company cash and have no healthcare?

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[HornWumpus]

Sprint and T-Mobile are on different bands. Phones are frequency locked to one network or the other. In most places they are both renting space from the same tower owners.

The only possible reason to allow this is the assumption that Sprint is already 'walking dead'.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe America should join the 21st century and get phones that work on more than one band. Don't be such cheapskates too, buy your own phone instead of having everyone else subsidize it for you. Then you'd be free to switch any time you cared to.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[HornWumpus]

A few of the new ones do, usually at the expense of international bands, a generic world phone multiband will work on T-mobile and ATT. Due diligence will get you prepaid SIMs on those networks, just like anywhere else in the world.

Verizon and Sprint are the odd ones.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[HornWumpus]

Also I don't think you mean 'subsidize'. Contracts aren't subsides, rather the opposite.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, bundled phones on a plan where the prices don't fall when the phone is paid off, is a subsidy to every one else on the same plans. You pay more for your calls and data so the telco can use that money to pay for the next persons phone. ie subsidize their phone.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[HornWumpus]

No. Each plan pays for it's own phone. The excess profit, if you're stupid enough to stay on contract, is pure profit to the company.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.google.com/search?... You are a cretin.

Re:Capitalism Tends Toward Monopoly

[HornWumpus]

Because a marketer calls something a subsidy doesn't make it so. 'Selling' a phone for less than list, than making it up on monthly charges is _not_ a subsidy. Unless you're a moron who can't add and can't see past today.

What does T-Mobile get?

[PineHall]

I am wonder what advantage there is for T-Moble. In the last few years, T-Mobile has greatly expanded its network. Coverage is much better. Would Sprint increase the network coverage of T-Mobile? I don't it would make much of a difference. Where is Sprint that T-Mobile is not? I don't see the advantage for T-Mobile. Cost savings from the combine company reducing staff, I don't think will be that great.

Re:What does T-Mobile get?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spectrum. That's what they get from Sprint.

Re:What does T-Mobile get?

[tgetzoya]

Sprint has a lot of spectrum that it isn't using because it can't afford to. After that, take the total number of subscribers from Sprint and T-Mobile and when it's still less than AT&T or Verizon there's so much spectrum left that T-Mobile could offer (very) much better coverage than either of the two titans.

When a new spectrum auction comes up, T-Mobile will not need to bid and therefore not raise rates to cover cost. Also, with all that new spectrum, 5G will be more realizable.

Finally, T-Moblie could start offering home broadband like Comcast or Charter. There would be lower caps than those but it's still a much more viable option at 5G.

Re:What does T-Mobile get?

[squiggleslash]

One less competitor. Both are occupying the same space (unfortunately) as budget operator with a poor (largely undeserved, in T-Mo's case) reputation for quality of network. T-Mobile gets the Sprint customers.

They could use the additional spectrum to go overboard on their bandwidth (unlimited LTE speed tethering! Data de-prioritization threshold of 500G! Go nuts! Get rid of Comcast!) I guess. Mind you, the problem there would more likely be the physical cables going to each tower. So I don't see that happening.

As a consumer, this might be a good thing, it might not. It might position T-Mo to challenge Verizon and AT&T more effectively as an equal. But they might also see the opportunity to raise prices.

Re:What does T-Mobile get?

[HornWumpus]

They'd need all new phones that could access all the bands. Generic 'world phones' can't use Sprint's spectrum.

NOooooo!

[xeno]

I've been with T-Mobile for... well, since they started in the US in the VoiceStream days. I worked for ATTWS for many years, family members have had Sprint and Verizon, ...so with a couple decades of input it's clear: T-Mobile is pretty good.

The problem is how godawful the rest are. ATTWS is still a pile of bailing wire pretending to be a premium carrier at top dollar. Verizon's technology is decent, but the customer service is incompetent at best, and the pricing schemes are draconian. And Sprint... oh Sprint... their customer service motto is "we don't care," their technical philosophy is based on lock-in, and their billing policies are designed by people who run those fitness gyms that you can't ever get to stop billing your card even after the service ends. By contrast, T-Mo is amazing, because they just keep being pretty good.

PLEASE, T-Mo, don't do this. Sprint's infrastructure is barely worth it, and the human capital over on the yellow side of the fence needs to be sent back to barista school, from top to bottom. Why trash a good thing for another .000002% growth? DON'T MERGE WITH SPRINT, she's a-no-good-for-you!!

Re:NOooooo!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have pretty much nailed it.

I love T-Mobile, but their signal sucks for me an hour north of Houston. Since I don't work IN Houston, but live and work an hour north, I'm forced to use Verizon, as they cover rural areas much better. When I lived in Northern Virginia, I was a happy T-Mobile user. Sprint and AT&T both have hideous signals depending. Verizon has pretty solid LTE coverage everywhere.

Re:NOooooo!

[starblazer]

T-mobile being good is all depending on where you live. Where I live, T-mobile has just recently entered the market. Coverage wise, they are no better than the cheapest of the cheap "BUY HERE -- PAY HERE" cell phone service. Leave town and have no coverage... However.. I will say that I think they have inked the LTE roaming deal with US Cellular which would have improved their coverage by a factor of 20.

I jumped my t-mo line over to Sprint to take advantage of the "One year of unlimited service for free" promo that yellow has been running. You couldn't pay me to stay on Sprint, even though the extended area coverage is nicer. It sucks walking thru town and having a cluster of blocks with good signal but absolutely no data.....

Re:NOooooo!

[stabiesoft]

Me too, remember the Jamie Lee Curtis commercials. Anyway, I've always been quite happy with T-Mo. They have always undercut the majors pricing and weirdly, even lower prices on plans of old customers without asking. I've gone from limited minutes back under voice stream for I think it was 80/mo to unlimited everything for 50. All without threatening to leave. Their CS reps are knowledgeable in store and the 2 times I had to call in over 15 years has been resolved quickly. I pray they don't screw it up with a merger.

Re:NOooooo!

[squiggleslash]

Verizon's technology is decent

Verizon's MARKETING of their technology is good. Their technology is awful. They're the only network I consistently have to ask everyone to repeat themselves three times or more if they call me. It's like listening to someone speaking through a garden hose that someone else is jumping on over and over again.

They've learned the secret to getting people to say they have a really good network is:

1. Marketing, marketing, marketing.
2. Maximize coverage, at the expense of everything else.
3. Focus on call drops and other unlikely events that tend to get used as objective metrics.

Do those three, and you can get away with anything, to the point your network is virtually unusable in practice. Why? Because if the objective metrics say it's good, people will rarely even realize the more difficult to measure but more critical attributes of a phone service are infinitely better with all the others. Even Sprint.

Re:NOooooo!

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the Carly Foulkes commercials. Giggity.

merger

[Anonymous Coward]

So two networks that are incompatible (CMDB vs GSM) are going to merge. Thats going to be fun.. Not to mention that stupid diddle ring tone t-mobile has.

Re:merger

[Anonymous Coward]

CDMA vs GSM....

Re:merger

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't be as bad as you imagine. A lot of phones have radios that support both, so could switch between after a carrier update. This is similar to the Nexus/Pixel phones switching between Tmo/Sprint/USCellular on Project Fi, and likely less complex/more reliable. For those phones that don't support both, the merged company has access to more towers and an put CDMA radios on the existing GSM towers and GSM radios on the existing CDMA towers if not already redundant without having to build new towers.

Re:merger

[squiggleslash]

Sprint is phasing out cdmaOne/cdma2000 in favor of LTE, which is the latest generation GSM standard. Many Sprint customers already have phones compatible with T-Mobile's network. T-Mobile went through a similar process with MetroPCS a few years ago, and took the decision to just drop the cdma* bullshit, giving everyone two years to upgrade their phones.

While Sprint is bigger than T-Mobile, expect the same policy, perhaps over a slightly longer period to make the phone upgrades more organic and less of a hit.

Network compatibility?

[WrongMonkey]

Sprint is CDMA. T-Mobile is GSM. How does a merger make sense when they can't even combine current customers onto the same network.

Re:Network compatibility?

[starblazer]

they both run LTE networks and LTE is the way of the foreseeable future. CDMA and GSM are not the main underlying topologies like they used to be.

Re:Network compatibility?

[EvilSS]

I imagine they will phase out the CDMA network. Most other CDMA carriers are dropping it. Verizon is slated to turn off theirs in 2019 and several Canadian carriers are moving away from it as well.

Re:Network compatibility?

[darkain]

Pretty much no different than when T-Mobile took over MetroPCS!

Re:Network compatibility?

[Solandri]

Aside from the SIM card (which is used for LTE anyway), CDMA and GSM are only used for voice and 3G data (in fact GSM uses wideband CDMA for 3G data).

LTE uses OFDMA, with a few channels using dynamically assigned TDMA. These are compatible with both GSM and CDMA carriers as long as the phones aren't frequency-locked to a specific carrier's bands. So the networks would in fact be compatible if you made a phone with an OFDMA LTE radio, and both CDMA and GSM voice radios. My old Nexus 5 supports all those. So does the unlocked Samsung Galaxy 8/8+. If a combined Sprint/T-Mobile requested manufacturers to make such phones, I'm sure they would (except Sony, who seems to hate CDMA voice).

Sprint service is fine in most of the East coast and midwest. Their service has been hamstrung in the West coast because the company they hired to build their tower network there (which has since gone bankrupt) spaced the towers out the furthest apart the specifications allowed. You know, the time-honored tradition of fulfilling the exact letter of the contract while spending the least amount of money possible. This resulted in a cellular network which only worked well in open, flat terrain, and had lots of dead spots in urban and hilly areas. Sprint has tried to fix this by adding intermediate towers, but this is expensive and often results in towers being too close together.

The only true fix is to tear it all down and build all the towers again with proper spacing. Or to merge with another carrier with their own tower network, and to reallocate transmitting equipment to properly spaced towers, and shut down unnecessary towers. The extra cellular bandwidth wouldn't hurt either seeing as both companies predominantly operate in the 1.8-1.9 GHz bands (Verizon and AT&T have the advantage of 900 MHz voice bands).

Re:Network compatibility?

[wh1pp3t]

Sprint is CDMA. T-Mobile is GSM. How does a merger make sense when they can't even combine current customers onto the same network.

All the telco's are in the process of migrating traditional voice networks to VoLTE.

Re:Network compatibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think T-Mobile has had it done for some time.

I've had a T-Mobile phone for some time, wife was on AT&T, voice calls were always "GSM" quality between us. Wife switched to MetroPCS (basically T-Mobile), and calls are in what I'd call "HD Audio", its unreal.

Re:Network compatibility?

[Shatrat]

...and by the time they're really integrated it will be time to roll out 5G anyway, which is likely a big driver of this merger. Without it neither will be able to afford to roll out 5G networks until long after AT&T and VZ are mostly finished.

Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

In a year everyone will be complaining about higher prices, worse service, fees, and limited selection.

I wanted a blanket phase out of CDMA...

[Zombie Ryushu]

I wanted a blanket phase out of CDMA... not more Mergers. CDMA is inherently Anti-consumer. What I wanted to see is a compulsory switch from CDMA to GSM for Verizon and Sprint, and a break up of Qualcomm, This is the opposite of what I wanted.

Re:I wanted a blanket phase out of CDMA...

[squiggleslash]

When T-Mobile bought MetroPCS they phased out cdmaOne/cdma2000 over a period of two years. Like Sprint, MetroPCS was a combined LTE/cdmaOne/cdma2000 network.

In all probability, T-Mobile will do the same thing with Sprint, perhaps over a slightly longer period of time. This would leave Verizon as the sole operator of a network still running Qualcomm's standards, and increase pressure on them to turn it off, moving all their customers to exclusively LTE (the latest generation GSM standard.)

So, other than breaking up Qualcomm, this merger will bring about your wish.

Sherman Antitrust Act

[Eldaar]

We have antitrust laws (anti-monopoly or pro-competition laws) on the books to stop this kind of thing. The Sherman Antitrust Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act) is the first that comes to mind. When will the US actually enforce laws like this to promote competition among markets? "The free market" rests on the notion that buyers and sellers in a marketplace have access to good information about what they're buying and selling, and that government creates reasonable rules by which the players play and compete. Allowing companies to gain such huge market share is definitely anti-competitive and hurts consumers.

Re:Sherman Antitrust Act

[virtig01]

Allowing companies to gain such huge market share is definitely anti-competitive and hurts consumers.

Sprint's share + TMUS's share is still less than the market share of either VZ or ATT.

Re:Sherman Antitrust Act

[rcase5]

It seems that there is no appetite to enforce the Sherman Act as of late.

Sure, the U.S. Government effectively stalled the acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T a few years ago. But more recently, if EVER there was a time to invoke the Sherman Act, it should have been when AT&T acquired DirecTV, especially since they already had their own subscription TV service (Uverse).

There was also the NBC/Universal acquisition by Comcast; they now own production, distribution and exhibition of a pretty big part of American media. They ended the ownership of movie theaters by movie studios for much the same thing about 70-odd years ago.

I wish they'd invoke the Sherman Act more than they do. But it isn't going to happen, especially with Republicans in charge of the White House and the Congress.

Sprint barely counts as competition

[virtig01]

We should not be okay with this. Reduced choices leads to increased cost. Fewer companies means less competition

You're assuming that the market can support 4 major carriers. Sprint has been operating at negative net income for years now. That's why Softbank is interested in the merger, because it's unlikely that Sprint will be able to scale to be profitable.

Google Fi

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the results will be for Google Fi users' coverage. Right now Google Fi contracts with T-Mobile, Sprint, and US Cellular. With T-Mobile and Sprint combining, will this be better, or worse? I imagine better, as duplication will be eliminated and the cost savings will spread to even better coverage.

Fire those fuckers at sprint

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got OFF of sprint ... it'll suck if their policies and people pollute T-Mobile

Have some prices

[kristofer.vesi]

Probably the prices will go up for internet and everyone will merge to 1. Funny, that I get 3GB for 1.6€ How? I live in Estonia. Smart (.ee) (it's a company under a company for prepaid, but they offer monthly too) -> Be a student (isic) or if you are not a student, be a teacher (itic) and get 3GB for 2€. Adittionaly some spots offer -20% everything so it goes down to 1.6€ If you aren't a student, then the best option is Super (also prepaid) or waste 1 year of your life, calling up providers and negotiating yourself an unlimited plan for 5€ (if you don't give me this, then I will go (start lower price, they will probably bet more) )

Re:Have some prices

[HornWumpus]

Quite happy to see the Estonia (my mother's birthplace) has tripled its per capita income in the 21st century. It's now about 30k$US.

Still half the income in the USA, so adjust prices accordingly.

Re:Have some prices

[Anonymous Coward]

Average or median ...?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is an outrage!

[Anonymous Coward]

I demand I still be able to use my Moto Razr.