Slashdot Mirror
Would a T-Mobile-Sprint Merger Hurt Consumers? (dslreports.com)
Following a report from Reuters claiming T-Mobile is close to agreeing on a deal to merge with Sprint, an anonymous Slashdot reader shares a report from DSLReports arguing how such a merger would remain "a very bad deal for consumers": The Sprint-T-Mobile merger could prove problematic for not only wireless prices, but the recent resurgence in unlimited data plans. While wireless carriers still often engage in theatrical non-price competition more often than not, the government's decision to block AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile several years ago helped spur an unprecedented period of competition in wireless (something large ISPs and their policy armies like to ignore). The end result was a brasher and more competitive T-Mobile, who lead the way on a wave of improvements in the sector culminating most recently in the return of simpler, easier unlimited data plans. The government's decision to block Sprint from acquiring T-Mobile helped keep that competition intact, something large ISPs and their policy folk would similarly like you to forget. As a result, T-Mobile has added more customers per quarter than any other wireless carrier for several years running, as the resulting competition put an end to numerous, nasty industry tactics including overcharging for international roaming, to obnoxious fees and long-term contracts. And while the new, combined company will likely still be run by current popular T-Mobile CEO John Legere, the very act of eliminating one of only four major players in the wireless market will indisputably reduce the incentive to more seriously compete on price, and could help reverse the progress the sector has seen in recent years. It's well within reason that this reduced competition could also bring back metered plans and put an end to unlimited data.Wirefly is a good place to compare cell phone plans to see the difference between Sprint and T-Mobile.
Unfortunately the term "The companies first priority should be to the share holders" has been taken out of context.
Back when it was written, Companies would often take the share holders money and use it just to enrich themselves, or will give it away to their church, or other crazy cause, even at the companies expense. So the shareholders were often investing in companies that were killing themselves. With the change of focus to prioritize the shareholder, it means that the company should use their money to invest back into the company, sell more product, higher people to make better products... Even if this is at a cost of a bad quarterly report. However the statement had been taken out of context so now it is about hacking the numbers to keep the shareholders quarterly profits high. At the expense of long term growth.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'd rather see it parceled out in bankruptcy then in a single deal like this.
This single deal would be likely be better for consumers. If the oligopoly is going to go from 4 to 3, it is better for the 3 to be roughly the same size. Sprint and T-Mobile combined are still smaller than Verizon in number of subscribers.