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.

5 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, but... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are two possible counter arguments to the "Fewer competitors = less competition" argument.

    The first is that both Sprint and T-Mobile are silo'd, in the public consciousness, with "Cheap and poor quality", in comparison to their other two competitors. The reputation is unfair: T-Mobile is superb right now, and Verizon has always been overrated, concentrating on technical metrics studied in surveys while running a network that ignores critical usability features like call quality and user friendliness.

    A merger would make it much easier for T-Mobile to knock down that final block in the public perception about its network. It can point out that it now has the combined coverage of both networks, matching or exceeding their competitors, and has plenty of low frequency spectrum to deal with indoor coverage issues. It would be able to argue that it is higher quality than both AT&T and Verizon on every metric.

    The second counter argument is that Sprint is failing. Badly. It's not been profitable in decades. It is being propped up by investor after investor in the hope that one of the big 3 will buy it out. Sprint is going to die, one way or another, and if it doesn't merge with T-Mobile the likely result is that it'll just go bankrupt and the assets will end up split across the big three anyway.

    There's a bigger picture here, and while yes, more competitors should equal more competition, two weak competitors in a four player market might not work as well as one strong competitor taking their place against the other two.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re: Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If consolidation is necessary here, then the question should become how to lower the barriers to entry in this market. Construction of a nationwide network requires a huge investment, which is the main barrier. The same could have been said for telecom prior to deregulation. Is there anything that can be done to lower the barriers to entry and increase competition?

    2. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I totally disagree.

      Sprint is going to die, one way or another, and if it doesn't merge with T-Mobile the likely result is that it'll just go bankrupt and the assets will end up split across the big three anyway.

      No. In bankruptcy, Sprint's assets would be sold off to the highest bidder. With none of the "Goodwill" charge you'll see on T-Mobile's balance sheet which will hurt T-Mobile's shareholders.

      Sprint should just completely die. They're a shit company and there is no way that T-Mobile is gonna change that company's corporate culture. Kill it with the fires of bankruptcy and everyone - except for the CEOs - will be better off.

      And that's all this is: CEOs helping each other out. See, in bankruptcy all those stock options and whatnot the Sprint CEO owns becomes worthless - as well as all of the big shareholder's. There are some bigshots shots who will lose big if Sprint goes under. So one calls a buddy and gets a buyout and all the rich people keep their money.

      We little people will get it in the ass. Less competition; we get it. Never works any other way.

      This is a perfect example of the perils of Capitalism that Adam Smith warned us about.

    3. Re:Yes, but... by Falconnan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not as convinced it's a horrible plan, but you make some excellent points. The problem with allowing Sprint's assets to be simply auctioned off are not minor. T-Mobile, being the smallest of the "Big 3" means they will probably be priced out of the auction for the best assets, further pushing them aside. As for CEOs helping each other out., that's not entirely wrong, but I have good reason to suspect the reality is more complicated.

      I had to do an ethical analysis of CEO compensation for a class some time ago, and it got pretty deep. Most executives have big egos and hate the notion of getting help from each other, but love being the one the other person needs. As for competition, T-Mobile likely wants to gain specific assets that are in Sprint's portfolio that can't simply be siphoned off in an auction anyway. More to the point, T-Mobile's CEO is not going to take a hit on his personal balance sheet to help a "not-really-a-friend" friend.

      Thank you, though, for pointing out Adam Smith wasn't full-on laissez-faire. It seems most miss this.

  2. Re:Monopoly conditions by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is still Verizon and AT&T
    Still a monopoly or an oligopoly may not hurt consumers, however it makes it much easier for them to do so.
    However if the two companies have similar cultures and processes the merger may be good for consumers as these were the underdogs in the market, If they can keep their underdog personality (with pushing their often better plans) with their combined infrastructure, they could really force Verizon and AT&T to compete more as well.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.