Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sprint, T-Mobile Aiming To Reach Merger Deal Next Week (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cry-wolf dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. wireless carriers T-Mobile and Sprint have made progress in negotiating merger terms and are aiming to successfully complete deal talks as early as next week. The combined company would have more than 127 million customers and could create more formidable competition for the No.1 and No.2 wireless players, Verizon and AT&T, amid a race to expand offerings in 5G, the next generation of wireless technology. T-Mobile majority-owner Deutsche Telekom and Japan's SoftBank, which controls Sprint, are considering an agreement that would dictate how they exercise voting control over the combined company. This could allow Deutsche Telekom to consolidate the combined company on its books, even without owning a majority stake. Deutsche Telekom owns more than 63 percent of T-Mobile, while SoftBank owns 84.7 percent of Sprint. Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile are also in the process of finalizing the debt financing package they will use to fund the deal, the sources said. There is no certainty that a deal will be reached, the sources cautioned.

79 comments

  1. Happy Friday From The Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for being a friend
    Traveled down the road and back again
    Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

    And if you threw a party
    Invited everyone you knew
    You would see the biggest gift would be from me
    And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

    1. Re: Happy Friday From The Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never, ever would have expected a Golden Girls reference here. Congratulations.

  2. Sherman Antitrust Act? by amazingxkcd · · Score: 1

    This would be considered for review by the Feds due to the Antitrust act, right?

    1. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Trump will block it like he did Broadcom/Qualcomm. These are foreign companies that want to compete with American companies. Can not have!

    2. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by DalM · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I would say that Trump will do whatever the person who pays him the most tell him to, but the reality is Trump will do whatever he is told to do by the last person he talks to.

    3. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by DalM · · Score: 1

      Yes, this will have to be approved. I would give it a coin toss on whether they do or not. Going from 4 carriers to 3 isn't making anyone happy, but is that enough to justify a block? I don't know.

    4. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      It begs the question, could telecoms get much worse?

      The answer is: hell yes it could get worse. The bar is so high to get investment capital that even LEO satellites with WiFi or whatever goofy next-gen GSM/LTE/gigglyBS arrives to cover the USA will be insanely expensive. Less carriers is not more.

      Everyone wants a payday. The newly merged organization won't be any smarter than the old one, just more bosses and fewer actual workers. The CSRs won't get brighter, coverage won't get better, services won't be finer.

      But as stated up-thread, what you or I want will make no difference. Public policy be damned, it's the campaign contribution or allies in the closet that financially benefit closest to the decision makers who will call the tune, and we'll continue to pay the piper.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He is so dumb he managed to end the Korean war today.
      Unemployment at historic lows.
      ISIS defeated.
      Syria likely to not use chemical weapons on their people again.
      Tax cuts for middle class.

      I'll take a double helping of stupidity if we get results like that.

    6. Re: Sherman Antitrust Act? by DalM · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "he managed to end the Korean war today."
      Did he? Or is the North Korea dictatorship just buying themselves more time and nothing is actually going to improve. But I won't be cynical here. If Trump can pull this off, he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact I'll take that as a step forward, and say that any president that just doesn't go to war deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

      "Unemployment at historic lows."
      That was Obama's economy not Trump's. And even still it's dangerous to put too much faith in unemployment numbers. Those can change on a dime real fast.

      "ISIS defeated."
      And what exactly did Trump do to that effect? Nothing. They collapsed because their economic growth was unsustainable.

      "Syria likely to not use chemical weapons on their people again."
      Yes they will. And then we'll bomb a few buildings again. Rinse and repeat.

      "Tax cuts for middle class."
      But those are unsustainable. The lot itself requires your taxes to go up dramatically to pay for the debt.

      Keep drinking the Kool aid.

    7. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He is so dumb he managed to end the Korean war today.

      Trump had nothing to do with it, and there's still no peace treaty signed. The two Koreas agreed that they should end the war and pledged to work toward it, but that's happened before and they're a long way from an actual treaty.

      Unemployment at historic lows.

      No, it's at 17-year lows. In 2000, the unemployment rate reached a record low of 3.8% in April, and had a four-month run of 3.9% from September to December.

      Unemployment rates for blacks and Latinos are at record lows, but even then only by a tenth of a percent. For blacks, December 2017 has a 6.8% rate and February and March 2018 saw rates of 6.9% each. Compare to April 2000 when it was 7.0%. For Latinos, the record low of 4.8% was first achieved in October 2006 and duplicated in June, October, and November 2017.

      ISIS defeated.

      Egypt, Syria, and Iraq would likely disagree. Egypt is dealing with ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula, Syria is still dealing with remnants, and Iraq is back to fighting them after some of the groups that fled Raqqa tried to take territory in Iraq again. Groups following or inspired by ISIS are still operating in Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria, and the Philippines, and may be active in Pakistan, Chad, and Tunisia as well.

      Syria likely to not use chemical weapons on their people again.

      They said that after the first time he used cruise missiles after a chemical weapons attack, and that one actually did damage to real infrastructure and destroyed some aircraft. Many more chemical attacks happened.

      Tax cuts for middle class.

      Most people are only taking home a few extra dollars per week, and while a few companies have handed out raises and bonuses, they are by far the exception. Some of the bonuses, like those handed out by AT&T, were planned long before the tax cut was passed but played up as being made possible by it. Those bonuses totaled $200 million for 200,000 employees. Compare that to the $29.5 billion in profit it posted in 2017. They were crowing about sending 0.7% of their profits to the employees. Meanwhile, compensation for the top five executives in 2017 was more than $74 million.

      I'll take a double helping of stupidity if we get results like that.

      The results so far are paper thin. It wouldn't take much to knock them down. Trump can do that by pushing a trade war, something he seems intent on doing. Even withdrawing from the Iran nuclear treaty could start stacking the deck against the economy given the significant sales that companies like Boeing have lined up with Tehran.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Sprint is going away sooner or later. It's extremely unlikely that they're going to get their act together enough to suddenly boost their subscriber count enough to remain competitive. It's either merge with T-Mobile now or get sold off in a bankruptcy auction later. The merger is the best outcome for consumers.

      Though you mention a good point about LEO satellites. SpaceX has initial approval for its 4000+ satellite constellation. It just might allow entrants (or even SpaceX) to offer a competitive, all-data service and not have to worry much about towers.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    9. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      He is so dumb he managed to end the Korean war today.

      Trump had nothing to do with it, and there's still no peace treaty signed. The two Koreas agreed that they should end the war and pledged to work toward it, but that's happened before and they're a long way from an actual treaty.

      I think Trump is a reckless goofball, but experts and the South Korean Foreign Minister are crediting him for pressuring North Korea to come to the table. The fact that he's a reckless goofball means you have to take the threats he makes seriously, kinda like how North Korea has been playing the West all these decades. Anyhow, we'll see if it's different this time around, or if it'll be yet another round of North Korea collecting concessions from the West, then reneging on the deal (as happened with food and energy aid in the past).

      The fact that North Korea is willing to talk to South Korea alone about a formal peace treaty is in and of itself a pretty big step. Previously, North Korea refused to recognize the legitimacy of the South Korean government, calling it a puppet state, and insisting on negotiating with the U.S. (and only the U.S.) directly. That's why in the past, the U.S. has insisted on 5-way negotiations between all major countries involved in the war - North and South Korea, the U.S., China, and Russia. North Korea agreeing to meet directly with only South Korea about ending the war is already a concession on their part. (So is Trump agreeing to meet Kim without South Korea present. This may be another Nixon-in-China moment, where only a staunch opponent can pull off overturning decades of established policy, because if anyone else did it, it would be seen as giving in.)

    10. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump had nothing to do with it

      Yes, let's trust Martin Dumbfuck over the leaders of South Korea, China, Japan, and North Korea.

      I'm sure we can trust Martin Dumbfuck. He's certainly in the know.

    11. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump will block it like he did Broadcom/Qualcomm. These are foreign companies that want to compete with *the American company*. Can not have!

      FTFY...

      T-mobile (own by Deutsche Telekom) and Sprint (owned by Softbank) want to merge to compete with Verizon (owned by Vodafone).

    12. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Korean War ending is a symbolic gesture, the real problem is getting the DPRK to denuclearize.

      Unemployment is historically low 'cause it's the end of a 10 year down trend. Trump didn't even add jobs faster than Obama did. He just continued the same policy.

      ISIS was defeated before Trump took office.

      Syria was totally fazed by a single attack on a single airfield that they were given heads-up warning about through Trump's stupid fucking Twitter account. Yeah...

      They made the tax cuts go away after a few years, unless you're a rich businessman, and it still creates a massive fucking hole in the budget that makes Obamacare look like the War on Terror.

    13. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      North Korea has played all the sides over the decades. Stalin wasn't actually all that keen on the North invading the South (the USSR still hadn't rebuilt its forces and was critically short on men, something it was desperate to hide), but Kim Il-Sung managed to convince him that China had his back though Kim was also convincing China that Stalin had his back. Ultimately, the Soviets sent minimal ground forces but numerous pilots who were ordered to never risk getting shot down over the South for fear of revealing Russian presence.

      While I agree that this is a potentially important moment, the North has backtracked on agreements many times in the past. Unless an actual peace treaty is signed, I'm not convinced of anything. Kim Jong-Il knows that the North can't win a war, but it can go down fighting with anywhere from tens of thousands to potentially a million or more casualties, and the separate cost of bringing North Korea up to the modern age is likely north of a trillion dollars. I see this as an attempt to play the US by using direct meetings with the South without the US present. Even if Trump did meet with Kim, Kim could easily back out claiming that Trump made promises that he didn't keep. At that point, whom do you believe?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    14. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I think Trump is a reckless goofball, but experts and the South Korean Foreign Minister are crediting him for pressuring North Korea to come to the table.

      No, no, it's all a coincidence, like the cold war ending under Reagan.

      The smart set all say so, just like they did then!

    15. Re: Sherman Antitrust Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backhaul is one problem. Cell size is another. You probably know this but there are more than 3000 cell towers in the US alone, not to mention the rest of the world. Satellite simply isnâ(TM)t a unicast broadband technology.

  3. Merge them all, improve competition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No problem, just merge them all into 1 company. They are all doing the same, what is the point to have 4 companies competing against each other?
    It creates huge overhead! 1 maximum two regionally independent companies would be enough for sure. It will improve competition on the market!

  4. If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Iâ(TM)m with T-Mobile and Iâ(TM)ll do anything I can to avoid Sprint like the plague. Everything they do is garbage, from customer service to hidden fees.

    1. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by FudRucker · · Score: 0

      Sprint has ancient 1980's & early 1990's era equipment, Sprint uses CDMA which is obsolete, almost all cell phone carriers use GSM which is a better standard

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Protip: you can turn off "smart" punctuation on your iThing, and it won't hemorrhage broken unicode into slashdot's comments.

    3. Re: If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro tip: itâ(TM)s not Unicode thatâ(TM)s broken, itâ(TM)s slashdot

    4. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I recently switched from Verizon to T-Mobile and am MUCH happier with T-Mobile. I hope they don't screw it up.

    5. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by NJRoadfan · · Score: 2

      CDMA was a superior (and much newer) standard to GSM, but that is a moot point as everyone is moving to voice-over-LTE. Of all the carriers, Sprint is the one lagging behind in this transition. The company itself doesn't appear to be well managed, seemingly having never recovered from that disastrous Nextel merger.

    6. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moron.

    7. Re: If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seems completely unnecessary to even use it. Clearly it's not required. The rest of us get along fine without it.

    8. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDMA is the better standard, that's why it was incorprated into the GSM standard.

    9. Re: If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Miser · · Score: 2

      Wrong.

      I encounter this on text based mailing lists as well.

      Get off my lawn. :)

    10. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      CDMA is a better channel access method than TDMA, which is why it was incorporated in GSM. The CDMA2000 standard, often referred to as CDMA, was inferior to GSM, which is why it was never widely adopted outside North America.

    11. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^This. I had Sprint a loooong time ago, and I swore I would never be their customer again. I'm currently a T-mobile customer (and very happy with their service) and I'm really dreading this.

    12. Re: If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen this error literally nowhere else besides Slashdot. Even if a handful of others have the same issue, the point is it's not Apple's problem; it's the website's problem.

    13. Re: If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then take the hint and get off of Slashdot, or turn off your damn smart punctuation crap so the rest of us don't have to run your post through a filter before were able to read it.

      Hint: Your iShit is the problem because its the only client device causing the issue. Android, Linux, Windows, hell even MacOS doesn't pull this shit. Slashdot isn't going to waste time fixing a bug that only affects iShit users by default. But the rest of us don't want to be bothered with your unreadable posts. So turn it off or get off, your choice.

      Now can we all just agree to downvote the unreadable posts? Or if it is constructive, maybe repost it for the iShit users in a readable form? /rant

    14. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by slew · · Score: 1

      CDMA was a superior (and much newer) standard to GSM, but that is a moot point as everyone is moving to voice-over-LTE. Of all the carriers, Sprint is the one lagging behind in this transition. The company itself doesn't appear to be well managed, seemingly having never recovered from that disastrous Nextel merger.

      Nextel isn't what killed Sprint. Early and heavy investment in 4G Wi-max technology set them back a whole generation of technology when the rest of the industry went 4G-LTE. They scrambled the whole technology generation trying to transition to 4G-LTE after having wasted most of their money on WiMax.

    15. Re: If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

      Dude ty, that always happens when I post to slashdot

    16. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      The company itself doesn't appear to be well managed, seemingly having never recovered from that disastrous Nextel merger.

      Exactly why I don't want them merging with T-Mobile, and also a reason the last merger talks never went through. Sprints management wanted to be in control of the new company and the other side didn't want that. What's their new idea now, that is allowing these talks to start again is what I want to know. Unless it's pretty much "T-Mobile takes over Sprint" I'm not seeing any reason to support this merger -- in fact how 'bout they just not, and stay the course to save us any worrying. T-Mobile has been making good gains the last several years, gains that are benefiting their customers as well as their shareholders, without mergers being involved.

    17. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      T-mobile has experience in this type of acquisition thought.

      They purchased Metro PCS and converted them over fairly effectively.

      They handled it much better than when Cingular did the switch with their own customers back in the day.

      I'm actually somewhat optimistic that this merge could be not horrible as a customer. Sprint sucks so bad, and has given up (did not invest in the last spectrum auction for 600MHz), they hardly count as a competitor. I have seen very little evidence that they are doing anything to become better.

      As a TMO customer, I really REALLY hope they don't give Sprint/Softbanc much control.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    18. Re: If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WiMAX was a use it or lose it stop gap solution to keep from forfeiting their unused frequency licenses. OFDM is actually the same tech as LTE, so Iâ(TM)m not sure they were behind so much as strapped for capital, as always.

    19. Re:If they merge Iâ(TM)ll have to switch by satsuke · · Score: 1

      Very little of TMO voice traffic is on GSM..

      People lump the entire 3GPP standards under GSM when GSM itself is not used very much at all.

      Effectively all phones sold by the carriers are UMTS at least, which uses a variant of CDMA for its air interface.

  5. different wireless protocols by FudRucker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sprint uses CDMA while T-Mobile uses GSM, i bet i can guess who the boss will be in this merger, T-Mobile is basically going to take over Sprint, which is okay by me, the sooner CDMA dies and all that old equipment is removed from service the better

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:different wireless protocols by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sprint is migrating to the LTE variant of GSM, so their cdmaOne/cdma2000 network is increasingly a legacy/gap filler rather than their primary means to providing service, and would eventually be turned off. So that would be happening anyway, albeit more slowly than will happen if T-Mo takes control.

      That said, T-Mobile being in control is pretty much a foregone conclusion. T-Mobile is well run and is growing. Sprint PCS has been beleaguered for a longer period than Apple was. It's always been poorly run, with no sense of direction. They botched the NEXTEL merger, initially went for WiMAX instead of LTE, and recently their "iPhone only" thing showed a complete lack of understanding of the market.

      T-Mo has its faults, but it's almost always (with the exception of the period starting a year or two before they tried to merge with AT&T until Legere's takeover) been an extremely well run company with a focus on respecting their customers, building their network on quality open standards. (I sound like a shill, but I honestly have a high level of respect for them that I just don't have for the others, and it's based upon personal experience. That period I mention that included the AT&T merger was a bitter experience, proof any company can go to pot.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:different wireless protocols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While CDMA as a concept for channel access has been around for half a century, cell phone standards (e.g. CDMA2000) based on it are considerably more up-to-date than GSM (used TDMA for channel access). Skimming the easily searchable stuff, there are a bunch of competing standards worldwide, and IMO CDMA AND GSM are both on their way out.

    3. Re:different wireless protocols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Protocols are not going to show who runs whom.

      I'm hoping T-Mobile controls Sprint, rather than the other way around. Sprint doesn't innovate, and their customer service, in my experience, has been absymal. I still remember the days where they would never allow a device on their CDMA network that wasn't theirs.

      T-Mobile, OTOH, if the device works on the right bands, pop a SIM into it, enjoy.

      If Sprint runs T-mobile, looks like I might just move to a MVNO. The other way around, I'll continue to be a happy T-mo customer.

    4. Re:different wireless protocols by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      Sprint using WiMax basically killed that technology. It would have been a great way to get last mile access to people who weren't near towns or main internet connectivity. Sprint screwed up trying to use it for mobile data. I wish someone would pick it up and run with it where it should have been used. Even slow service is better than dial up that many rural homes are stuck with.

    5. Re:different wireless protocols by zarmanto · · Score: 2

      Sprint uses CDMA while T-Mobile uses GSM...

      Except that basically everybody is in the middle of transitioning to some variation of LTE, so it'll all be the same in the end, anyway.

    6. Re:different wireless protocols by NJRoadfan · · Score: 2

      The failed AT&T merger is what likely saved T-Mobile. It gave them the needed cash to buy the additional spectrum they needed to be competitive.

    7. Re:different wireless protocols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T had to give T-Mobile cash AND some used AT&T spectrum. I agree, if it wasn't for that T-Mobile would of either died or gotten bought by someone else (a smaller player, like maybe US Cellular) shortly after the failed merger.

    8. Re:different wireless protocols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All currently used standards are evolutions of GSM. They may use CDMA rather than TDMA, but it is all based on GSM.

    9. Re:different wireless protocols by Solandri · · Score: 1

      the sooner CDMA dies and all that old equipment is removed from service the better

      Um, CDMA won the CDMA vs GSM war. GSM used TDMA - each phone gets its own timeslice, and they take turns talking to the tower. CDMA allows each phone to transmit whenever they want, and used orthogonal codes to separate out each phone's transmissions. The difference didn't matter much with low-bandwidth applications like voice. But when 3G data rolled out, CDMA absolutely destroyed GSM. Giving each phone a timeslice means each phone uses a fixed percentage of a tower's bandwidth, even if it doesn't need that much bandwidth, or any bandwidth. In CDMA, the bandwidth gets divided automatically between the number of phones which are transmitting. Each phone sees other phones' transmissions as noise, so the more phones which are transmitting, the lower the signal-to-noise ratio, and the less bandwidth each phone gets.

      That's why CDMA carriers got 3G service about a year before GSM carriers. GSM couldn't compete, and within a year they threw in the towel, licensed CDMA, and added it to the GSM spec. GSM phones have a wideband CDMA radio for 3G data. That's why GSM phones could talk and use data at the same time - they had a TDMA radio for voice, and a separate CDMA radio for 3G data. CDMA phones only had a single CDMA radio, so could only do one or the other, not both simultaneously.

      You should be thanking CDMA for the data rates we enjoy today. 4G LTE mostly uses OFDMA - phones transmit at the same time, but use orthogonal frequencies (as opposed to CDMA's orthogonal codes) to distinguish each other. CDMA was the proof of concept that this crazy orthogonal signaling idea, where everyone talks at the same time but you can still tell them apart, actually worked when rolled out into a national network. If the U.S. had gone along with GSM and prohibited CDMA, orthogonal signaling might have been dismissed as crazy, LTE probably wouldn't have rolled out when it did, and cellular data service today would probably be limited to about 512 kbps to 1 Mbps. (WiMAX used OFDMA as well. CDMA came first because OFDMA requires more processing power to sort out the different transmissions than CDMA, so early implementations drained a phone's battery quickly. It took a few years for mobile SoC processors to drop in power consumption enough to make OFDMA power-competitive with CDMA.)

      This is probably the best modern example of government-imposed regulation (GSM) sending us down the wrong technology path, while a market-driven approach (U.S. allowing CDMA to compete with GSM) arrived at a superior technological solution. Government-mandated standards are fine if you know what the optimal solution is (e.g. electricity voltages and AC vs DC, or cable networks which have pretty much all standardized on DOCSIS). But if you're not sure what the optimal solution is, it's best to leave it for the market to sort it out before you start imposing standards which eliminate research into possibly superior solution spaces.

      The only difference between CDMA and GSM today is voice and legacy 3G service. Both use LTE for 4G data, both use a SIM card to enable LTE service (CDMA supports SIM card portability for LTE, but not for voice - you can put a Verizon SIM card in an unsupported Nexus 5 and get LTE data, but not voice). Most phones produced today support both CDMA and GSM (TDMA voice, wideband CDMA 3G). LTE is mostly OFDMA with a few dynamically assigned TDMA channels (including, ironically, one of Sprint's). So once you begin discontinuing 3G data, the only difference between the two will be how voice calls are handled. The bigger impediment is actually which channels (frequencies) are supported - the carriers have this thing about requesting manufacturers produce phones with channels they don't support disabled. So assuming the merger goes through, depending on which channels they decide to keep and dump, some legacy carrier-branded phones will stop working and owners will be forced to upgrade.

    10. Re:different wireless protocols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      initially went for WiMAX instead of LTE

      Sprint was in a use it or lose it situation with their 2.5GHz spectrum, they had to deploy something, WiMax was ready and LTE wasn't. I'll say that again LTE WAS NOT READY when Sprint had to start deploying on their 2.5GHz spectrum. They had NO CHOICE if they wanted to retain the spectrum.

      Their big problem was they didn't have the money to deploy densely enough to support their footprint. Many cities only had one WiMax tower deployed to show the spectrum was being used. This obviously doesn't make for a great user experience.

    11. Re:different wireless protocols by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Um, CDMA won the CDMA vs GSM war

      CDMA can refer to a set of standards created by Qualcomm, or it can refer to the Code Division Multiple Access form of data modulation and transmission.

      GSM is a set of standards. So in the above sentence, the only thing you can be claiming is "The Qualcomm standards won the war against GSM."

      This is not true. The GSM family of standards continues to exist and be developed. Qualcomm has stopped developing more of its "CDMA" standards and has advised its partners to migrate to the fourth generation of GSM.

      GSM used TDMA - each phone gets its own timeslice, and they take turns talking to the tower

      That's the correct tense. "Used". 2G GSM used timeslicing. 3G GSM (UMTS) used, instead, Code Division Multiple Access, though not "CDMA" (ie not the Qualcomm family of standards.) 4G GSM (LTE) uses OFDMA. Both 2G GSM and 3G GSM is on life support. 3G GSM offers more features than 2G GSM, but is much less reliable (because, frankly, CDMA is shit, and the only reason it was adopted for 3G is because of Qualcomm's lobbying), and requires far more bandwidth to provide a minimum service (5MHz rather than 600kHz.)

      So even if we pretend this is CDMA vs TDMA, not Qualcomm standards vs GSM, your assertion still is incorrect. CDMA has lost. It lost after TDMA, but it's not actually the "winner". Right now that's OFDMA.

      I think that I've covered enough to ensure you understand the point. If you claim "CDMA beat GSM", and you're referring to Code Division Multiple Access, your sentence doesn't make sense. If you're saying the Qualcomm standards beat GSM, that's obviously false. And if you think Code Divison Multiple Access is what the word decided to use, well, that's not true either.

      The Qualcomm standards were shit. The technology is awful. I'm glad to see the back of them.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:different wireless protocols by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      How the hell did they get themselves into a situation where they had spectrum but had to use it by a specific date? Nobody else seemed to have that problem.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:different wireless protocols by slew · · Score: 1

      How the hell did they get themselves into a situation where they had spectrum but had to use it by a specific date? Nobody else seemed to have that problem.

      Sprint got a bunch of spectrum licences with their purchase of NexTel. NexTel got the spectrum for business services, but Sprint wanted to deploy it for consumer cellular. At the time 4G LTM standard wasn't ready, and 4G WiMax was ready with Intel pushing it heavily...

      The problem for Sprint was that although they technically had the lead in 4G, various things conspired for them and they couldn't really reach critical mass in deploying WiMax before LTM got a foothold. Since everyone else was using LTM, they lost the battle for network deployment $$...

  6. Keep T-Mobile management? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This could allow Deutsche Telekom to consolidate the combined company on its books...

    Does that mean that the new joined company will keep T-Mobile's management?

    Because I'll tell you what, I'm a T-Mobile customer, and I'm pretty happy. The coverage may not be quite as good as Verizon, but there are no hidden fees, no mysterious extra charges, no vague limitations. They don't really do market segmentation with deceptive pricing. They don't try to fight me if I just want to buy an unlocked phone, forgo their subsidy, and have a lower monthly price. The terms of their international roaming are pretty awesome. In the US, they pretty much set the standard for what a cell carrier should be.

    Meanwhile, Sprint has been a disaster for years. Even setting aside all the public well-known stuff, I used to have a job that involved dealing with all the major carriers, and Sprint was the worst. They were disorganized. The people who worked there were awful. Their internal systems were poorly designed. That was several years ago, and maybe it got better, but I have no faith in that company.

    So if the deal is that T-Mobile gets Sprint's infrastructure to add on to their own, to improve coverage, cool. Great. But if people from Sprint are going to be running anything, then this is very sad news.

    1. Re:Keep T-Mobile management? by ctilsie242 · · Score: 2

      You summed it up exactly. If T-Mobile runs the show, all is well, as T-Mobile does a great job as a cellular provider. However, if Sprint execs start running things, there is no real reason to stay, because instead of added cool stuff, we likely would get added fees and surcharges. While I've not had much experience with Sprint, I have not read much that is positive about them, and it seems that most people who were on Sprint moved to Verizon.

    2. Re:Keep T-Mobile management? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of T-Mobile's quality came about after the last time a T-Mobile & Sprint merger was blocked. Then T-Mobile decided to actually compete on quality rather than just looking for a merger/buy-out. What happens if a merger goes through is anyone's guess.

    3. Re:Keep T-Mobile management? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, fuckstain. It was the failed AT&T/T-mobile merge. You're a god damned fucking moron fucktard.

    4. Re: Keep T-Mobile management? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like you who go off on hateful tirades over innocuous mistakes are very sad people. Does that make you feel like a big man?

    5. Re:Keep T-Mobile management? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      However, if Sprint execs start running things, ...we likely would get added fees and surcharges.

      ...it seems that most people who were on Sprint moved to Verizon.

      As a T-Mobile subscriber, this sounds like "out of the frying pan, into the fire" to me.

  7. I really hope not by DalM · · Score: 2

    We need to organize a letter writing campaign to the governmental authority (whoever that is. The FTC?) to block this. We don't need to drop from 4 wireless carriers to 3.

    1. Re:I really hope not by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      But it might be nice to go from two major carriers to three major carriers.

      AT&T and Verizon continue to charge substantially more than what T-Mobile and Sprint PCS do, while being more than happy to treat their customers appallingly. That tells me that neither T-Mobile or Sprint have any market power to speak of, and shouldn't be considered competitors to the big two.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  8. Wait -- again? by zarmanto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've lost count... how many times has T-Mobile tried to merge with another carrier? And so far, hasn't each and every attempt been rebuffed by antitrust concerns?

    Why are we hearing about this, yet again?

    1. Re:Wait -- again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They were payed handsomely for their failed merger with AT&T. Used the money to buy spectrum and expand their reach. Why not do it again?

    2. Re:Wait -- again? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      AT&T tried to buy T-Mobile but was shut down on antitrust concerns. AT&T had to pay a $3 billion breakup fee to T-Mobile because the deal fell through.

      Twice before, Sprint and T-Mobile have tried to merge. The sticking point was not antitrust concerns but how much control SoftBank would have over the unified company.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:Wait -- again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-Mobile bought MetroPCS. Seems to be a win for the MetroPCS users I know.

      I switched from T-Mobile to Fi about that time. Fi uses T-Mobile & Sprint (& US Cellular, but they're not in my area) and I've been happy and saving money vs. T-Mobile. But I'm a heavy wifi user (work, home, friends & family, or Xfinity hotspots) and like Google phones, so it just works for me. Only 190mb of data in 20 days, which means it looks like I'll be at my average of 300mb/month (or $3 for data). Total monthly bill: $23 + taxes. The rest of my family is even cheaper as their base cell bill is $15/month + data.

    4. Re:Wait -- again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheaper to get a year of Mint SIM (T-Mobile MVNO) and continue to use the same WiFi networks.

      $15/month gets you 2GB of data and unlimited talk/text.
      $20/month gets you 5GB data.
      $25/month gets you 10GB data.

  9. uh oh ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    ... it had better be T-mobile that runs the show.

    My wife has long had Sprint, I have long had T-mobile. Sprint sucks, in every conceivable way. Super pricey, awful service.

    Latest Sprint example; she finally got a new phone ... gave up waiting for any of the affordable phones to be "in stock" from Sprint (affordable models never "in stock", how believable is that?) and got an unlocked phone elsewhere. Got a SIM from Sprint, it took 2.5 hours on chat with Sprint support, literally, to get the stupid thing working.

    Never had any problems with T-mobile. Sprint had better not screw them up.

  10. Bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember what happened the last time German and Japanese formed an axis towards America...

    1. Re: Bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On behalf of my other fellow ACs, I apologize for the parent AC's racial feud. Apparently, he believes that its still the 1940s and is way out of his time period.

  11. Nationalize the carriers instead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And while we are at it, nationalize the D'Anconia mines now!

  12. That is how it ALWAYS goes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So long as they compete, we win.

    Once they merge, we lose.

  13. How will this affect creimer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has been a valued customer at Sprint for 20 years. Due to this relationship, they would be happy to supply him with a new iPhone if he pays the upfront costs. Will he still be treated with such respect after a merger with T-Mobile?

  14. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Germans are a race now?

    1. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race

  15. Not good from a T-Mobile customer perspective by al0ha · · Score: 1

    Sprint network and business sucks - I left them long ago for T-Mobile, which offers so much more and such better service, including true global phone and data connectivity which is included in most post pay plans. I am really skeptical of the benefit of this merger for current T-Mobile customers considering Sprint will ultimately be the primary stakeholder and voting block. :(

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
  16. Black unemployment at all time low!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of them got a job...

  17. What changed? by spinitch · · Score: 1

    Seems Sprint walked away last time since wanted control and / or closer to $8 - $9 per share. Now rumor valuation around $6 - $6.50. So much for holding the strategic investment which was undervalued ? A combination seems logical can cut a lot of overlapping functions , site costs etc and reduce undercutting each other. Best of luck. A stronger #3 will be able to roll out new tech such as 5G sooner.