Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Failure of Sprint/T-Mobile Merger Means a Missed Chance To Save $30B (kansascity.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the tough-luck dept.

UPDATE (11/5/17): Sprint and T-Mobile confirmed Saturday that they've ended their merger talks, saying they were "unable to find mutually agreeable terms." The Kansas City Star reports that the failure "means shareholders of the two companies gave up $30 billion or more in cost savings that their managements had expected a merger to generate.

"One combined wireless company would have needed to invest less in its network than the two competing companies spend separately... Absent a merger, Sprint now faces a highly competitive marketplace as the smallest national player and with a more aggressive rival in T-Mobile."

Several news outlets had already reported on Monday that Japan's conglomerate SoftBank, which owns Sprint, has pulled the plug on a proposed merger between the two carriers. From a report: SoftBank will reportedly propose ending merger talks with T-Mobile parent company Deutsche Telekom as soon as Tuesday, October 31st. That's according to Nikkei, which says that SoftBank wants to end merger talks due to "a failure to agree on ownership of the combined entity." It's said that Deutsche Telekom insisted on a controlling stake of the combined T-Mobile-Sprint, and that some people at SoftBank were okay with that as long as SoftBank had some sort of influence. However, SoftBank's board recently decided that it wouldn't give up control, and today it decided that it wants to call off the merger talks.
Last Monday Sprint and T-Mobile shares both fell immediately following the media reports.

83 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. I can't complain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've had top notch service from T-Mobile. Service beyond what is expected from a carrier.

    Sprint, on the other hand... meh. They just never have done much to make themselves stand out, and tossed technologies that were cool (iDEN, WiMAX). Heck, they were demanding $1500-$2000 from Windows Mobile app developers for a signing cert so apps could work on their devices.

    If T-mobile came on top, great. If Sprint "leadership" did... I'd probably wind up fleeing to a MVNO.

    1. Re: I can't complain... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Did you ever use wimax? I did, and it fucking sucked. I had their service beginning in 2003 and ended it in 2013 because the quality of service kept declining. Hell, I was on the phone with Sprint support telling them that I'm always getting dropped calls, and they told me that my dropped call rate was zero percent...but then the call dropped right afterwards. I had to use the forced roaming trick to get them to drop my contract, then I switched to TMobile... Massive difference in call quality and speed, and this was before they even did the uncarrier thing and became disruptive. T-Mobiles hspa+ was so much better than Sprint's wimax in terms of speed, and it didn't drain my battery while using it.

    2. Re:I can't complain... by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 2

      I've had top notch service from T-Mobile. Service beyond what is expected from a carrier.....If T-mobile came on top, great. If Sprint "leadership" did... I'd probably wind up fleeing to a MVNO.

      The idea was that T-Mobile would be running the show after merger. The sticking point was how much SoftBank would get paid in addition to the 40% or so of the combined company they’d still own. T-Mobile didn’t want to pay much. SoftBank should have taken what they could get while the getting was good. Sprint is circling the drain.

    3. Re: I can't complain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No merger is the best outcome. More competition is great.

      I dropped Sprint like a bad habit after one too many frustrating support calls with script reading offshored cheap tech support though. Even competition seems unable to help them not suck.

    4. Re: I can't complain... by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      Not only is it circling the drain, they're not even trying.

      They didn't buy any spectrum last auction, so they can't really build out and compete.

      I suspect TMobile ends up buying them after they're reduced to about the size of Metro PCS.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re: I can't complain... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      No merger is the best outcome. More competition is great.

      More competitors doesn't always mean more competition.

      Verizon is bigger than Sprint and T-Mobile combined. So is AT&T. Telecom is a capital intensive business, and a combined company may have been better positioned to compete against the "big two".

      The result will now likely be Sprint slowly fading away and a weaker T-Mobile mainly focusing on cheap customers willing to sacrifice coverage for lower prices.

      Disclaimer: I am a cheap T-Mobile customer.

    6. Re: I can't complain... by jshackney · · Score: 1

      I am an even cheaper Boost Mobile (Sprint) customer. I wish I could afford to be a cheap T-Mobile customer.

    7. Re:I can't complain... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      I think that if you were from Europe, you would feel differently about T-Mobile. I have a T-Mobile phone which I use when I'm in the U.S. and I find them to be absolutely horrifying. I've tried all of them and found them all to be absolutely terrible.

      Now... let me explain why U.S. mobile coverage is so bad... and it's easy to explain.

      T-Mobile and Sprint seem to think that they need to merge their businesses to be aloud to share the cost of building a network.

      There is such a thing as partnerships and cooperation. Then T-Mobile customers can use the Sprint network and vise versa and the customer doesn't know or care which network they're connected to.. they just get a better experience.

      But for some cocked up reason, it seems that T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, etc... all seem to think that they need to build the same network over and over again. Instead, if each carrier agrees to have their own networks within densely populated urban areas and outside, they each agree to invest roughly equally (proportionate their subscriber/consumption statistics) into expanding the network, then they can have a single network which covers everywhere with almost European quality in a short time.

      It seems absolutely stupid to me the way American companies always have to compete over everything no matter how stupid it might be. I grew up American and every time I go back, all I ever see is non-stop competition... whether it's children fighting over mommy's love or mega-conglomerates fighting over web browsers. Mac vs. Windows, iPhone vs. Android, etc.. Everyone is so busy competing that if anyone took the time to actually invest their efforts into cooperation, we'd all be better off. Imagine if Apple and Google and Microsoft all cooperated and made a single internet messaging system as a replacement for iMessage and Hangouts? Imagine if I could run OS X as a virtual machine for iOS development on a server? etc...

      Imagine if I could use my cell phone in America anywhere and it would just work?... like how it is in first world countries.

    8. Re: I can't complain... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

      More competition is stupid my friend.

      More players could be a good thing, but competition when it comes to these things is absolutely stupid.

      Carrier A - "Hey look... we put up 40 new LTE POPs in this urban area!"
      Carrier B - "Hey look... we put up 50 new LTE POPs in the same urban area!"
      Carrier C - "Hey look... we put up 110 new LTE POPs in the same urban area!!! We win!!!"

      Customer - "Hey look, I have great coverage on all 3 of my phones from Carrier A, B, and C at my office... but I had to walk 3 miles to get signal when my tire went flat on the Interstate driving from NYC to D.C. last week. Too bad the carriers don't share the load to cover outside the cities. It's strange how we never have coverage problems when traveling in Europe".

      If these players were to work together to actually build their networks out and regulation were put in place giving fair access at fair prices to carrier over carrier on the common network, then American mobile coverage wouldn't suck so bad... and it REALLY REALLY does.

      I just took a 1200 person company in Europe and convinced them to stop investing in wireless networking at the office and to invest in VPN and LTE modems or LTE enabled laptops instead. We did the cost calculation and realized that :
        a) The cost of maintaining a modern wireless and telephone network at the office was 3 times more expensive than simply using LTE.
        b) LTE has a MUCH better chance of working everywhere.
        c) LTE has actual quality of service

      I can go on. But this was headquartered in a tiny little village with like 5000 people with an hour drive to the nearest highway and a little airport with 3 flights a day. And the LTE coverage there works everywhere for a 50km radius at least and 100% along the roads. And this is because competition is BAD for telephone networks.

      We build our networks out.
      We charge our frienemies to use our networks
      We send them an itemized bill
      They send us an itemized bill
      If we see that we're paying them too much in a specific area, we build our own towers there
      If it would cost more to build towers than to simply pay them, then we simply pay them.
      The government forces us to collaborate to have a minimum 95% service coverage nationwide.
      We share the costs with our frienemies to cover as many areas as possible with the least amount of cost.
      We get support from the national military because they need to practice demolition, so they lay lots of fiber to make it a little productive.. we then buy fiber from them instead of going mesh.

      Competition isn't good. Cooperation with regulation is good.

      But if you think it's better to have a bunch of shitty carriers competing instead of a bunch of great carriers cooperating... I suppose that's fine...

      BTW... do you watch sports too? I really really really like sports... they tend to make it so there are places like stadiums and bars or at least sofas at home which keep the people who don't believe in cooperation out of the way of people who believe in working together for a few hours here and there.

    9. Re:I can't complain... by satsuke · · Score: 1

      It may shock you, but roaming is a thing in the US.

      The big problem with your suggestion about (not) everyone overbulding the same area is one of capacity. Even in the EU there is finite spectrum that has been dolled out / sold off to each carrier.

      With all 4 national carriers offering unlimited usage plans, companies like Verizon and AT&T are using up 100% of their own resources, let alone enough for carriers that don't have native coverage in an area.

    10. Re: I can't complain... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Technically T-Mobile did as well, and probably all other carriers (Verizon for sure, I have no idea about Sprint). They all implemented what they called 4G LTE before the spec was finalized and had data rates below the final spec (how off varied by carrier). Verizon then started marketing real 4G as "4G plus" even though it is really 4G. That said, they all implemented 4G LTE as best they could from the draft specification, so it isn't necessarily the carriers fault - they needed to upgrade and the spec took forever to get finalized.

    11. Re: I can't complain... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Since Sprint doesn't intend to compete for rural customers, they do have all the spectrum they care about. TMO seems really interested in rural service, so they went and got a bunch of Band 71, aggressively worked with the departing users to move them along (as in paid them $), and deployed. I'll perhaps ditch my U11 early and get a 600-capable phone, since this will probably be the vest service where I vacation, and the current PCS band is still marginal at best.

      TMO is determined to compete with the Big Two on equal terms. Sprint hasn't been aggressive since they bought Nextel, and that died on the vine a long time ago.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    12. Re: I can't complain... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Really? What company is that?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    13. Re: I can't complain... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      You've got it backwards. Government regulation ensures that competitors can't differentiate themselves easily, and so defeats the free market and any chance it has of actually impacting prices and benefiting consumers.

      Get the government out of all but technical regulation.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    14. Re:I can't complain... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am am TMO customer, and when I travel in Maine, I sometimes end up where they have no service, I roam to US Cellular. This is Hell.

      First, US Cellular and TMO limit me to 50MB of data in a given period, and it hardly matters if the period is measured in anything less than hours, since that's not enough data to survive merely checking for software updates and location updates in 24 hours.

      They also seem to throttle data speeds before the 50MB limit is reached, though I cannot tell quite when.

      And US Cellular has had the habit of latching your connection even when you've gone back into home service, a trick they have used since the 90s in Maine, which sometimes requires you restart your phone 3 times to re-register correctly and get back to home base.

      Roaming in the US is often a punishing experience.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    15. Re: I can't complain... by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      $15/month for unlimited voice and text, and 2GB of 4G data with unlimited slower speed data afterwards cheap enough?

      https://www.mintsim.com/plans/

    16. Re: I can't complain... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Yes it means exactly that. What you are trying to say is that not all competitors are equally matched.

      Telecom is anything but a capital intensive business. The last vestige of significant cost to telecoms was copper lines. They have nearly eliminated them Cell service is the giant cash cows for them.

      What needs to happen is Verizon and AT&T (ne SBC) need to be broken up again.

    17. Re: I can't complain... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      What market regulation. There isn't any fucking market regulation. Community in Kentucky passes a law to make it easier for broadband service to service the area - AT&T sues the community to prevent competition.

      That's what's happening ass-hole.

    18. Re: I can't complain... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Does Sprint own enough low end to penetrate buildings (not rhetorical, I'm a TMO customer)?

      There are three places I frequent that I get a strong lte signal out front, but no signal inside.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    19. Re: I can't complain... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Wow. I get you proving my point, and a vulgar insult to boot.

      It's a two-fer.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    20. Re: I can't complain... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Sprint seems to have gobs of 2.5GHz spectrum, plentiful 1900MHz spectrum, and 800MHz.

      Of course, 2.5GHz is very attractive for LTE, but short range and an urban solution, for even the suburbs require a LOT of towers to serve up that. 1900 is a PCS band, and again relatively expensive to deploy, lots of towers in rural areas and sensitive to topology and vegetation. 800MHZ isn't as penetrating as some other options, is lackluster for a lot of reasons.

      TMO has Block A 700MHz they are using for LTE, quite a bit of 1900/2100 AWS, 1900 PCS, and is very bullish on their nationwide Band 71 600MHz purchase, though phones will be slow in coming for this, as they are the exclusive user I believe, and have to move off the legacy broadcasters who have worn out their welcome...

      Sprint has made their play in urban and higher density settings, TMO seems determined to build virtually 100% coverage somehow, be it a mix of 71 and others bands, or focusing on 71 and letting the others fill in where best suited. My money is on TMO, not just because I'm as customer, but I think they have a better plan, and are controlling costs - which paying $8Bn for Band 71 will do to you.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    21. Re: I can't complain... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm hoping cheap band 71 phones will be out by the time they (hopefully) add it to my area (I assume as a fairly urban area with nominally perfect coverage that will be late, but I hope they add some for the sake of the few restaurants I go to that seem to have 0 penetration).

      the 700MHz has notably improved coverage is some areas I go (eastern shore MD and Buffalo, NY), but it's still pretty weak there (on and off, and never good data). They are far better than 4 years ago though.

      The low band isn't just about range though, it should make a difference in the inside deadzones I encounter about weekly (fast 20/20 coverage outside, walk into the bar, dead), well, as long as they deploy everywhere with it.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  2. Sprint fades into mediocrity by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Spring merged with T-Mobile, it would fade into mediocrity. Now that they aren't, Sprint will fade into mediocrity.

    1. Re:Sprint fades into mediocrity by magarity · · Score: 1

      Fade? Heck, I already keep forgetting Sprint is still in business in the first place.

    2. Re:Sprint fades into mediocrity by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

      I'm a Sprint user, so please let Spring merge with T-Mobile.

    3. Re:Sprint fades into mediocrity by jshackney · · Score: 1

      Same here. I was hoping there was some substance to this rumor.

    4. Re:Sprint fades into mediocrity by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Damn you autocorrect!

    5. Re:Sprint fades into mediocrity by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Oligopolies get rich off mediocrity, because they can. Fewer players means even more profits off of mediocrity. Less Choice = More Suck.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:Sprint fades into mediocrity by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I'm a former Sprint user that moved to T-Mobile, and I say HELL NO! Sprint is by a mile the worst carrier of the big four, and I really don't want their crappy influence screwing me over yet again.

      If you really want better service, why not just switch?

  3. Does this mean... by zarmanto · · Score: 1

    Can we expect Sprint to finally get the **** off their laurels, and actually get back to improving their network infrastructure?

    No... I didn't really think so, either. <sigh>

    1. Re: Does this mean... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Sprint has been all about increasing ARPU and decreasing churn, but not overall subscribers or network quality for many years now. At least, that's what they've had on their financial statements.

      When you read between the lines, what this means is that they're doing whatever they can to nickel and dime customers, scale back discounts, etc.

    2. Re:Does this mean... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I don't want good reception. I want an iPhone

      I want an iPhone.

    3. Re: Does this mean... by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      No this means there getting ready to start building out now that they've slightly turned the ship around.

    4. Re:Does this mean... by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      Says the coward ....

    5. Re: Does this mean... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      They've been saying that for about 5 years now.

    6. Re: Does this mean... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually strike what I said in that previous reply...Sprint has been saying that big upgrades are right around the corner, usually placing 3-6 month timespans, for the past 12 years. They have a tower upgrade map that always shows these short timespans, ranging anywhere from a month or a year, where they say the tower is being upgraded. Meanwhile, that entire time, the service kept getting worse and worse.

      Oh and: https://www.cnet.com/news/spri...

      It's well past that two years, and two years before that, Sprint said "pardon our dust":

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/...

      Seriously, this is nothing new with Sprint. I was with them for a very long time before I got tired of their shit, especially when they blatantly lied to me saying that my dropped call rate was 0%, and during that same call I got dropped, the rep actually called me back, I said WTF, and she said "I don't know what that was."

    7. Re: Does this mean... by Bruha · · Score: 1

      Theyâ(TM)re full of shit. We all have whatâ(TM)s called a call data record. It will state why a call dropped. Lost carrier, failure to roam to new tower etc. they know damn well why your calls drop. They just donâ(TM)t want to admit fault.

    8. Re: Does this mean... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Oh cool, so they bought a lot of the low frequency spectrum to make that possible at the last big spectrum auction?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    9. Re: Does this mean... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Oh cool, so they bought a lot of the low frequency spectrum to make that possible at the last big spectrum auction?

      Even when they buy new spectrum, it's really just a marketing ploy to keep customer defections down. Do they use this spectrum? Yep, but their standards for a market launch are much lower than other carriers, just like their standards for everything else. Normally carriers deploy the new equipment in a given market and have what's called a soft launch (i.e. it's not announced to the public) where they have spotty coverage, but the service can be used if somebody happens to be there with a compatible phone. When it's a hard launch, they have the spotty areas mostly ironed out and announce to the public that they officially provide coverage in this area for the new spectrum.

      Doing it this way makes sense, but Sprint isn't in the business of making sense, rather Sprint is in the business of pretending to give you wireless service. Sprint's hard launch is the same as what other carriers call a soft launch, and what happens is they leave "islands" of coverage and broad swaths of areas in that market without coverage at all. But because you at least get *some* coverage in between (even if it's only 2g) then Sprint calls it a job well done.

    10. Re: Does this mean... by starblazer · · Score: 1

      One heck of a way to increase ARPU by offering the BYOD "Free Unlimited for a year" promo? Chain the customers and pray they don't start churning in July?

      ....because I will be if they don't renew it.

    11. Re:Does this mean... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Clearly, you do not 'get it'. Getting off the porch is dangerous. You may get bit. Or left behind.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    12. Re: Does this mean... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      The simple way to decrease churn is stop soliciting new customers,. Those who stay are satisfied, and don't churn.

      But that is not a reliable measure of success.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  4. Diversity Maintained by letthelightin · · Score: 2

    Market diversity is good for the people.

    I'm glad to see these corporations maintain their separation and continue to compete.

    1. Re:Diversity Maintained by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this deal goes ahead, there will be three big cellular operators competing with one another.

      If this deal doesn't, there will be two big cellular operators competing with one another, with a third also-ran, and a fourth perpetually on the verge of going bankrupt. Like right now.

      Market diversity is impossible without healthy competitors.

      All of which said, if Softbank/Sprint insists on playing a role in the post-merger "T-Sprint", then it probably shouldn't go ahead. They have done little to fix Sprint or address its underlying issues, and T-Mobile is doing a superb job considering their lack of resources. Let's hope sanity prevails.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Diversity Maintained by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      T-Mobile is not going anywhere. They already have a really nice network in most cities, they lack coverage in rural areas and in some markets but they still show a healthy growth.

    3. Re:Diversity Maintained by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      Yes the only important place ;)-

    4. Re: Diversity Maintained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have to be some kind of special to call someone complaining about a lack of technical process a luddite.

    5. Re:Diversity Maintained by Desler · · Score: 1

      Why would they have been referring to anything else? The article is about T-Mobile in the US.

    6. Re:Diversity Maintained by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Band 71 is 600MHz. And there is a difference...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:Diversity Maintained by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      TMO owns plenty of towers in the US. perhaps you should reconsider your sources?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  5. The real problem by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Japanese stakeholders were unwilling to start wearing pink shirts.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:The real problem by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Odd statement, pink is nearly the national color of Japan!

      I don't think a Japanese businessman is going to find a more macho color than cherry blossoms, I mean, get real.

      Here is a picture of Softbank founder Masayoshi Son wearing a pink tie:

      http://cfile10.uf.tistory.com/...

      If you could get any of these guys to wear a company print T-shirt instead of a suit and tie, I'm sure they'd be fighting over who gets to wear Power Pink.

    2. Re:The real problem by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      THIS is the single most genuine and compelling post I've read on /. in years. Damn, you are good. Love that Japanese culture. Mostly.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  6. Sounds like Denial... by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Informative

    on Sprint's part, about who the real loser in this pairing is.

    Management/merger failures is how they got into the position they are now. Why the hell would T-Mobile, who have only been doing gangbusters-better the last five years, let Sprint take the wheel of the combined company?

  7. That is Wonderful New! by charles05663 · · Score: 2

    Heck, T-Mobile could only go downhill if the merger went throw.

    1. Re:That is Wonderful New! by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

      But if they can spell? Maybe it should go "throw"?

    2. Re:That is Wonderful New! by luther349 · · Score: 1

      yea maybe take those billions and focus and getting towers outside big citys.

    3. Re:That is Wonderful New! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      But the merger did get thrown!

      Deutch Telekom only has 3% more revenue than SoftBank, so they're close enough in size that whoever didn't get control of the combined company would be making a downhill move. But DT didn't throw it; Sprint is who threw.

  8. Morons! We are surrounded by Morons! by williamyf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Deutsche Telekom (Parent company of T-Mobile USoA) has been trying to get rid of T-Mobile USoA for years (lustres, maybe even decades)...

    That's why these news about mergers in the Cell-Comm industry always involves T-Mobile as One of the actors.

    And while is true that the company went public when it reverse-merged with MetroPCS, the germans have not been able to get rid of it selling shares in the Opent Market.

    At this time, the Germans should realize that this repeated efforts to sell T-Mobile to another Cell-Comm concern is not the path forward, and instead knock the Door of Spectrum/charter or Comcast and merge (with one of them, although Comcas and Charter have a strange agreement regarding Cell-Com services), to be a Wireless+Cable+Wireline Concern. To sweeten the deal, they may make a pure stock merger. This will dilute ownership for them, allowing for an easier selling of shares in the open market.

    And now, a little MBA FanFic:
    1.) A meger between T-Mobile and a Big CableCo will force Sprint to merge with the other.
    2.) The merged entity resulting from Charter will, sooner or later, knock on the door of CBS/Viacom to Acquire the CW + some other table scraps.
    3.) The two merged entities will race to merge/acquire Dish.

    At that point, we will end up 4 comparable giants in the Wireless+Wireline+Cable+DTH+Content, but instead of being equal in every dimension, will be bigger in some, and smaller in others...

    Then we would see a little bit more competition from these oligopolies... Trying to leverage their strengths in one dimension to capture customers to reinforce their weaker dimensions...

    One can only hope.

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:Morons! We are surrounded by Morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      more competition from that proposed outcome? you need to give your drug dealer a tip, because he's definitely supplying you with some good shit. there's no fucking way that....

      at&t+tw+directv
      comcast+tmobile
      charter+dish+sprint

      or anything resembling that

      would do anything good for us mere mortals. it would be absolutely catastrophic for competition, for consumer prices, and for content availability.

      once you get down to three major players, the odds and of collusion goes way, way up.

      five or more would be best. four is somewhat acceptable, as shown by the wireless ecosystem prior to at&t+directv; or in hardware, the four players in the mechanical hdd business, that's ok... three? fuck that. there's only three major dram/flash producers now, and look at the fucking mess that is for consumers... and graphics chips? only two players there and just as bad... or intel and their decade-long stranglehold on computer processors (no, amd was not 'competition' during the time between intel's core architecture first launched and amd's zen earlier this year).. stagnated advancements and development and high prices for over ten fucking years as intel milked every penny they could during that period.

    2. Re:Morons! We are surrounded by Morons! by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      Math must be hard ....

      Where was Verizon in your list (hence 4) ?

    3. Re:Morons! We are surrounded by Morons! by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Deutsche Telekom (Parent company of T-Mobile USoA) has been trying to get rid of T-Mobile USoA for years

      If you can read the summary, it says they refused to sell it, they insisted on being in control of the combined company.

      Trying to get rid of it would mean they were happy to have Sprint control it as the party not controlling it will get more money. I mean, control has value, right? If you're getting a controlling share of voting stock, the other people are going to get extra non-voting stock to compensate. If you're wanting to get rid of it, then you come up with a cash-and-stock deal where the other company buys as much of the control as they have cash for! That's not at all even close to the situation here.

      You seem to be importing a narrative that has nothing to do with the context. As for your fan fiction, lets just say you're obviously not an MBA; maybe it is some other genre after all?

    4. Re:Morons! We are surrounded by Morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Deutsche Telekom (Parent company of T-Mobile USoA) has been trying to get rid of T-Mobile USoA for years (lustres, maybe even decades)...

      Not since early 2016, when TMO slowed customer churn, started pulling in comfortable profits, and moved to third place. In fact, DT sees TMO as a bright spot for growth. With the latest deal to buy Sprint, DT didn't want to give up management control.

    5. Re:Morons! We are surrounded by Morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, T-Mobile just won a shit-ton of Spectrum in the 600MHz range, which will greatly improve both Coverage and Building penetration, so TMO service is only going to improve.

      Second, a Merger between T-Mobile and Sprint would have a difficult time getting approval based on the AT&T / T-Mobile outcome.
      Also,Mergers generally mean some Layoffs, so which an Administration focused on Job creation I see this as even more unlikely.

    6. Re:Morons! We are surrounded by Morons! by luther349 · · Score: 1

      other then this time t-mobile would been the domment company unlike there last attempts to dump it off. its why the talks failed sprint wanted to keep running things despite them failing as a company.

    7. Re:Morons! We are surrounded by Morons! by luther349 · · Score: 1

      you got it t-mobile is doing just fine there current ceo relly made them get there act together and relly disrupted things t-mobile is why everyone offers unlimited data again. spint did to many lines of cocaine to think they where going to keep controlling interest wile there company burns down around them.

  9. Sprint is not better than the others. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I've been an unwilling Sprint customer twice.

    The first time, I got a Nextel because I worked for a construction-trades company. The PTT feature was the shit. Nobody could match it then, and everyone has dropped it since. Sprint bought Nextel and made it suck. I eventually switched to AT&T to get an iPhone (back when it was AT&T exclusive). The worst part was having to wait nearly 8 months for the contract to run out. Ugh.

    Fast forward a few years, and I had switched away from AT&T to US Cellular. (Also got rid of the iPhone in favor of Windows Mobile 6.5 and then Android. Yes, both are better than iOS. And I eventually went back to Windows Mobile once W10M came out.) So Sprint buys out a handful of US Cellular markets in the midwest, including the one I'm in. They gave us a date when everything would switch over to Sprint, with a big rah-rah about how much better it would be and how unicorns would fly out our asses or some shit. That date came, and I suddenly had no signal, no roaming, nothing. The next day, I switched to T-Mobile.

    Sprint can go fuck themselves in the ass with a rusty grill brush covered in hepatitis juice.

    1. Re:Sprint is not better than the others. by starblazer · · Score: 1

      You got lucky being sold off.... USCC has been sitting on their ass since the sale. Heck, their new "Unlimited" plan is "Unlimited at 1.5Mbit/sec... Yes... unlimited in 2017 at T1 speeds. Pay a little bit more and they'll give you a bonded T1 pair.

  10. Sprint's Dog Pees at press conference by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    actually, the owner of Sprint, SoftBank. see it here: https://www.dramafever.com/new...

  11. As a T-Mobile customer this is great news by stikves · · Score: 1

    I like my current level of service. I know it is not perfect, especially when I go to vacations to remote areas, however I get 95% of what I need at about half the price of the competition. Among the competition, AT&T seems to provide similar service with higher price, and Verizon seems to offer better service with higher price. Sprint always seemed the distant last with worse service, with worse price (compared to what I'm getting right now).

    There was some potential in T-Mobile absorbing Sprint and repurpose the spectrum for better combined service in the long run. However SoftBank seems to have a different idea in this merger. I would not want T-Mobile resources used by Sprint to make a worse combination of the two (remember Sprint is losing money, and the way they can make, if they took over TMobile, would be giving less service for higher price).

  12. delivering less with less by epine · · Score: 1

    Why does the word "save" so often translate into delivering less with less?

    Which lies more in the "skimp" territory, if we're being semantic.

    1. Re:delivering less with less by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Why does the word "save" so often translate into delivering less with less?

      Because they see themselves saving expenses with the same revenue coming in (at least for a while, but they'll get their bonuses before people stop renewing their long term contracts).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  13. Sprint needs to die and go away.. by toonces33 · · Score: 1

    If they cannot give up control then ending the merger was the right thing to do.

  14. "expected" by Tom · · Score: 1

    The key word being "expected" to save.

    All mergers are accompanied with glorified accounts of how much synergy will be realized. I've been through several mergers, the last two at high management positions. In reality, only a small part of that synergy is ever realized, because the consultants never dig deep enough to figure out that no, you will not be able to merge your CMS systems because A doesn't offer this critically important feature that B offers. So you also can't save half of the IT personal, or maintenance cost. And no, that one call center can't handle all your requests without extensive training and tool changes. And no, those three managers are not superfluous they actually have all the really important information in their heads. And so on and so forth.

    In a good merger, a fraction of the projected savings is actually realised. In a typical merger, next to nothing. The main purpose is to consolidate market share and get rid of a competitor.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:"expected" by luther349 · · Score: 1

      merger is just a nice way of saying buyout and you all will be fired in do time.

    2. Re:"expected" by Tom · · Score: 1

      The firings is usually the only "synergies" that are actually realised.

      Until you find out a year later that you needed half of those people, and hire them back. Well, not the same people, of course, they have other jobs now. You hire different people, then spend a lot of money training them, burning all those savings (but they were on a different quarterly report, so that's all good).

      With no exception, all the mergers I've seen close all had this firing phase, and then about a year later, a hiring phase.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  15. Re:Good for the customers! by luther349 · · Score: 1

    those number's are always ass pulls. they base it on money nobody actually sees or has.

  16. Good by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    My wife has Sprint (typical plan). I have T-Mobile ("prepaid", but it's unlimited and I pay once a month with automatic payments, so whatever).

    Her service costs between two and three times as much as mine (closer to three).

    She used to be able to say that she had a signal inside large buildings, and I sometimes didn't. I got a new phone recently that needed a smaller SIM card, and now I have great service inside such buildings too. No more advantage to Sprint.

    Both have clunky websites, though to be fair T-mobile's site never got in a crazy login loop where it wouldn't believe a password had been changed. For months. Sprint's did.

    Sprint costs almost three times as much, and offers no advantages that I can see. So I can't see anything good coming of a merger. (Unless, of course, Sprint becomes more open, better, and cheaper. Not holding my breath.)

  17. Re:Trump / Russia merger - TREASON by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    *whoosh*

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  18. Re:Trump / Russia merger - Nothing burger by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    You're feeding them, They will only multiply.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  19. Re:Good by Bill+Hayden · · Score: 1

    Sprint is far from the best phone company, especially in term of customer support, but their prices are amazing. I'm not sure how you ended up paying 2-3x more for your wife's plan. Our family has 5 people on unlimited accounts with Sprint and we pay $109 per month. The best I could do anywhere else was like $160-180.

    --
    Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
  20. Headline a little misleading by BenBoy · · Score: 1
    Failure of Sprint/T-Mobile Merger Means a Missed Chance To fire employees making a total of $30B. Because synergies

    BTW, if you want to use a combined Sprint/T-Mobile, you could just sign up for Project Fi.

  21. Re:Good by satsuke · · Score: 1

    Sprint doesn't automatically move you to a cheaper rate plan, you have to call and change it most of the time.

    You are also possibly comparing the rate for a single line of service vs the pricing for 4+ lines of service. It's crazy, but at Sprint, $25 per line when purchase 4 vs $50 for one.